This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Handle java_demangling?
- To: dj at delorie dot com
- Subject: Re: Handle java_demangling?
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 04:14:50 +0100
- CC: hjl at valinux dot com, nickc at redhat dot com, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, kenneth dot block at compaq dot com
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 18:56:30 -0500
> From: DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com>
> > Well, is the master copy in gcc?
Most definitely.
> Yes, but cplus-dem.c is being maintained by someone other than me (as
> libiberty maintainer). I don't know exactly what their policies are,
> but they don't follow the usual libiberty policies. Stuff seems to
> get done anyway ;-)
I would like to think Dan Berlin and I would follow "libiberty
policies", but I don't know exactly what you refer to, so I
can't say. Recent breakage indicates some kind of not-following
policy, though. :-( Sorry. Do we misbehave in other ways too?
Or do you just refer to maintaining cplus-dem.c a bit different
from other libiberty sources?
IIRC, the change in policy to maintain cplus-dem.c with a few
extra hands *in addition to* other libiberty maintainers, was
done too speed up getting demangler fixes done -- but I'm not
sure we are successful. Note that cp-demangle.c has another
maintainer. Perhaps we should actually say this in the various
MAINTAINERS files...
> However, I do ensure that binutils/gdb get updated when gcc gets
> updated, either by nagging the contributor (preferred) or merging it
> myself.
It would be nice to have a few testcases for Ada and Java
demangling. Not that simply adding testcases would have caught
the seemingly trivial missing "case" that H.J. found; it seems
to happen only when demangling stdin.
I will bootstrap GCC with H.J.:s patch and run the GCC and
binutils testsuites. If it passes, I'll commit to GCC and
binutils.
Thanks.
brgds, H-P