C++ areas again

Peter Naulls peter at chocky.org
Mon Dec 6 13:02:37 PST 2004


In message <05c234194d.Jo at hobbes.bass-software.com>
          John Tytgat <John.Tytgat at aaug.net> wrote:

> In message <8f5b19194d.peter at chocky.org>
>           Peter Naulls <peter at chocky.org> wrote:
> 
> > I also wonder if our 'ld' should trying harder to demangle those names.
> 
> Something related to this, should we have demangle code in UnixLib
> backtrace routines ? I haven't investigated this seriously but I seem
> to remember that the demangle code in GCC was rather bulky so I'm not
> sure if we really want to do that.  Comments ?

cp-demangle.c is 110k of source, so it might not be a hot idea.  C++ is
uncommon compared to C, and are also the requirements for demangled
backtraces.  However, we might consider reintroducing c++filt - !gcc
used to include it.

-- 
Peter Naulls - peter at chocky.org        | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drobe - http://www.drobe.co.uk/        | The Premier RISC OS News Site



More information about the gcc mailing list