This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the libstdc++ 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]

New demangler in C++

> | I think it's a mistake to do a new implementation in C++.

> I beg to differ.

> | I think that the demangler should be written in C as an independent
> | module so that it can be used in programs that are not written in
> | And I think that having two demanglers just makes things worse; now
> | they can be out of synch in all sorts of weird ways.

> While I recognize of the out-of-sync danger of having two independent
> implementations, it is a mistake to force a C implementation of the
> demangler on every body.  This message is not a religious matter.

I guess what I think is this:

- The demangler ought to be able to be linked into GDB, binutils, source
  browsers, etc.

- Those applications presently use no C++.

I think that the maintainers could possibly be persuaded to link in one
C++ .o file -- but probably not libstdc++.

So, if the file were written in C++ -- but didn't use <string> -- I'd
probably resist less.  You're right that if it's written in C++, but
doesn't use C++ library stuff, that it could present a C interface and
that would be fine.

The key point is that I think it's a big mistake to have two
demanglers.  If we're going to write a new one, we should make sure that
it can replace the old one, not just get added to the mix.

Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark at codesourcery dot com

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