Hi Michael, > I think this points toward the limit being _much_ too low.
Fair enough - several other people have said this as well. So I have proposed an alternative patch instead. My current suggestion is to raise the limit to 2048, which allows the libiberty patch to pass. But do you have a feel for how much is a realistic limit ? > demangler, just looking at the symbol name and demangled result I don't > readily see where the depth of recursion really is more than 1024, are > there perhaps some recursion_level-- statements skipped? I do not think so. Unless there are some long jumps in the demangling code ? I did a quick scan and did not find any, but I could have missed something. Plus of course I cannot guarantee that my patch is bug free, although looking at it again I do not see where I missed a level decrement. I think that the demangling code just is really recursive... Cheers Nick
