Hello,
On 2009 m. June 26 d., Friday 23:01:54 Florian Weimer wrote:
* Modestas Vainius:
While apparently, VT can't be implemented differently (except \d+),
what about size_t etc. then? They all can be implemented as regexps
too the most simple being 'any character'. However, in my opinion,
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 09:23:29AM +0300, Modestas Vainius wrote:
While it is a good idea worth consideration but I think demangled symbol
names are somewhat too ambiguous to be used in general. See below:
[Examples]
Not a problem IMO -- we need a new package name anyway if gcc's ABI
Hello,
On 2009 m. June 26 d., Friday 02:02:48 Ben Hutchings wrote:
- it's probably impossible to have substitutions to cover all cases
for C++ symbol mangling... do you believe that it is possible
to have enough (stable) substitutions to cover most common cases?
(in the current
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 04:34:00PM +0300, Modestas Vainius wrote:
[...]
2b) Still 2a is not enough if the base class contains such data members like
(s)size_t (on s390) or qreal (on armel). To support such cases, vt can only
be
a complex expression with recursive subst expansion like
Hello,
On 2009 m. June 26 d., Friday 19:43:13 Ben Hutchings wrote:
Would it be possible to implement expansion to a regexp instead of to a
string that must exactly match?
I think yes if there is no other way (and according to your answers, there
really isn't). Symbol files have two usage
* Modestas Vainius:
While apparently, VT can't be implemented differently (except \d+),
what about size_t etc. then? They all can be implemented as regexps
too the most simple being 'any character'. However, in my opinion,
exact string matching is worthwhile to keep whenever possible.
Can't
Hello,
it is well known that C++ symbol mangling result in different symbol
names from one architecture to the other. It means that libraries that
want to provide symbol files have to maintain one symbol file for each
architecture. To avoid this problem Modestas Vainius has written a patch
that
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 22:40 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hello,
it is well known that C++ symbol mangling result in different symbol
names from one architecture to the other. It means that libraries that
want to provide symbol files have to maintain one symbol file for each
architecture.
8 matches
Mail list logo
