This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Get rid of underscore.c

On 23 Sep 2002 15:45:43 +0100, Nick Clifton <> wrote:

> : Andrew Cagney wrote:
> :
> : How about GCC bundle in a program called g++filt while binutils
> : bundle c++filt.
> I like this idea.

I don't.  Having the same program installed under two different names seems
pointless.  Having slightly different versions of the same program seems
even worse.  The status quo of having c++filt in both places seems
preferable to me.

>> Jason Merrill <> writes:
>> I honestly don't see a reason for binutils to build c++filt.  Do
>> you?  I'm not being sarcastic.
> One reason is to support the debugging of binaries produced by non-gcc
> compilers.  Although you are correct in saying that most compilers do
> provide their own demangler, that demangler may not be free.

Yes, but that would only matter to people who don't have the compiler.  In
other words, people trying to debug third-party code built with a non-GNU
compiler.  This doesn't seem like a significant audience to me; such code
probably wouldn't be built with debugging info anyway.

> One of the goals of the binutils project is to provide a free,
> alternative, set of binary tools that anyone can use, regardless of the
> compiler/ object-code-producer that they are using.

OK, but it seems to me that if someone is installing the GNU binutils, they
will have also installed gcc, and thus c++filt.  If they haven't, is it
really too much to ask that they do so?

This all seems like a lot of hassle in order to cater to the needs of an
entirely hypothetical niche audience.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]