This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: demengler in libstdc++ is changed
"H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
[...]
| > So far nobody has defended a NO answer. So I will. I don't think
| > there is any reason to expect that two demanglers should produce
| > the same character-by-character output. I expect that both demanglers
| > should produce correct output, but there are multiple correct ways to
| > write some constructs in C++. Users should not care which one is used
| > (so long as the output is clear), and the output of demanglers should
| > only be used for inspection by humans. Programs that want to
| > manipulate information about C++ programs should use some other
| > mechanism, such as mangled names or parse trees.
| >
|
| But why do they have to be different?
They do only have to agree semantically.
| What should the criteria of
| demangler output in gcc be? Anything goes as long as it is correct?
|
| FYI, GNU linker uses demangler in symbol version script for human
| readable names.
I think there should be a tool on top of the demangler in order to
cope with semantic isomorphism like "const int" == "int const".
I'm not convinced the output of the demangler should be defined at
character-precision level.
-- Gaby