Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>]

Summary: no regressions in the gdb test suite.  One change detected
that's a slight improvement.

I know this is moot because gdb can't use code implemented in C++,
but I thought it would be interesting to run the test anyways.

I tested this with the usual:

  target     => native
  host       => i686-pc-linux-gnu
  osversion  => red-hat-8.0
  gdb        => HEAD%20030708
  gcc        => 2.95.3, 3.2-7-rh, 3.3, gcc-3_3-branch%20030707, HEAD%20030707
  binutils   => 2.13.90.0.2-rh, 2.14, binutils-2_14-branch%20030707, HEAD%20030707
  glibc      => 2.2.93-5-rh
  gformat    => dwarf-2, stabs+
  glevel     => 2

All the gcc v2 results were unchanged (obviously, since gdb still uses the
same v2 demangler).

The gcc v3 results were the same for all versions of gcc v3,
binutils, and gformat.  There were three places where something like
this happened:

  # old
  print &'dm_type_unsigned_int'
  $6 = (int (*)(unsigned int)) 0x8048940 <dm_type_unsigned_int(unsigned)>
  (gdb) PASS: gdb.c++/cplusfuncs.exp: detect dm_type_unsigned_int

  # new
  print &'dm_type_unsigned_int'
  $6 = (int (*)(unsigned int)) 0x8048940 <dm_type_unsigned_int(unsigned int)>
  (gdb) PASS: gdb.c++/cplusfuncs.exp: detect dm_type_unsigned_int

That is, the old demangler prints 'unsigned' in some places, and the new
demangler prints 'unsigned int'.  This happened once in
gdb.c++/cplusfuncs.exp and twice in gdb.c++/templates.exp.

Michael C