This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: New demangler bug and HOWTO-demangle (was Re: Demangle THIS)
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: New demangler bug and HOWTO-demangle (was Re: Demangle THIS)
- From: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 01:33:44 +0200
- Cc: Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <20010621052336.A15429@alinoe.com> <87y9qlg8yc.fsf@cgsoftware.com> <20010704064739.A25505@alinoe.com> <87hewsmw7i.fsf@creche.redhat.com>
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 11:37:53AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Carlo" == Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> writes:
>
> Hi.
>
> Carlo> I did find only ONE bug in the demangler of libiberty, which is
> Carlo> actually pretty impressive.
>
> You probably know this already, but the demangler in libiberty has a
> test suite. If this is genuinely a bug (I don't claim to know either
> way), could you write a patch for the libiberty test suite? I think
> we should try to keep that test suite as relevant as possible...
>
> Tom
I have deliberately not looked at the source code of libiberty at all,
so that nobody could accuse me of 'using' GPL-ed source for something
that I wish to release under QPL (it sucks, but the main reason I
reinvented the wheel and wrote my own demangler is the license).
Right now I am attacked on the fact that my library (libcwd) is *linking*
with libbfd, which is released under GPL - and hence libcwd should be
GPL too. And then people say GPL is not a virus :/
Anyway... I suppose we're all grown-up people with common sense; so
I'll try not to make a problem of this (hopefully nobody will make it
a problem for me too)... I'll have a look at libiberties testsuite
and see if I can come up with a test case.
--
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>