Re: analysis of libiberty/cp-demangle.c for libsupc++/__cxa_demangle

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com> writes:

| Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> writes:
| 
| > Thanks for the "nice" times at gcc, I am out of here.
| > I will not do anything ever again for the FSF or libstdc++ in
| > particularly.  And Ian, if you just-like-that without any
| > discussion or approval start to remove my code - then make
| > sure you get my copyright assignment undone too!  I want my
| > code back - completely.
| 
| Carlo, my apologies.  I didn't remove your code.  I responded to a
| request from Mark to put together a patch for the 3.4 branch based on
| a patch from Benjamin's patch.  Benjamin's patch did remove your code,
| and the patch I put together removes your code too.
| 
| That patch has not been approved or applied.  The part of it which
| removes your demangler was not written by me.
| 
| I'm already on record as saying that on balance I think your demangler
| should remain in libstdc++:
|     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2004-02/msg00338.html

  Yes, you're entirely right and I think Carlo is wrong in accusing you.

  As I said earlier, we should not disguise the removal (if that were
to happen) as a bug fix to make libsupc++ self-contained.  I'm of the
opinion that the demangler has proven to be useful and is still useful
(yes, it could be improved, but that is a different story).  I do not
think we should take actions to discourage people to contribute.
Even if I happened to disagree with Carlo on some technical aspects, I
do not believe that the removal of its contributed demangler (which we
actually asked for and acclamed!) is fair or the right thing to do.
It is not like he has announced to no longer maintain the demangler
and we're shortage of maintainers. 


-- Gaby