This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ demangler horrors
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>,Oscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo dot es>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 07:24:07 -0700
- Subject: Re: C++ demangler horrors
- References: <20030626203555.GA25243@lucon.org> <4r2c5mov.fsf@wanadoo.es> <20030627014931.GA30139@lucon.org> <y8zo3y0l.fsf@wanadoo.es> <Pine.BSF.4.56.0306271411080.53800@naos.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <20030628013200.GA23878@lucon.org> <m3isqqa6gi.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <20030628145900.GA2791@lucon.org> <20030628152805.GA3496@lucon.org> <or65mm4aw0.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 10:47:11AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2003, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 07:59:00AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >> My patch doesn't requrie it. But some people don't like the way I solved
> >> the problem with
> >>
> >> ar -d ....
> >> ar rc ....
>
> It's not about not liking. Consider a parallel build in which someone
> is linking with libiberty while demangler goes and modifies it. Bad
> idea. And splitting this into demangler like this won't fix it:
>
> > all:
> > $(MAKE) -C ../libiberty [new_demangler|old_demangler]
>
I don't get it. Are you saying you can link with libiberty before
libiberty is done? In my post:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-06/msg02404.html
I said
> 3. Change the top level dependency such that targets which used to depend on
> libiberty, now depend on demangler, demangler depends on libiberty and
> libstdc++ if it is needed. Please keep in mind that only demangler for target
> needs libstdc++ for target. I don't believe it has much impact on parallel
> build.
Can you tell me how a parallel build will fail with my proposal?
H.J.