On 2018-12-14 5:39 p.m., Jason Merrill wrote:
> GDB/binutils folks, how do you want to handle this? Shall I go ahead
> with this patch, with the understanding that there will be associated
> changes necessary when merging it into the binutils-gdb repository, or
> go with the small disabling patch
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 4:00 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/7/18 12:48 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes:
> >
> > Pedro> I would say that it's very, very unlikely, and not worth it of the
> > Pedro> maintenance burden.
> >
> > Agreed, and especially true for the more
On 12/7/18, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/7/18 6:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:22 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM Jason Merrill wrote:
Looks good to me. Independently, do you see a reason not to disable
the
old
> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes:
Pedro> I would say that it's very, very unlikely, and not worth it of the
Pedro> maintenance burden.
Agreed, and especially true for the more unusual demanglings like Lucid
or EDG.
On the gdb side perhaps we can get rid of "demangle-style" now. It
probably
Hi Guys,
Looks good to me. Independently, do you see a reason not to disable the
old demangler entirely?
>> * How likely is it that there are old toolchain in use out there that
>> still
>> use the v2 mangling ?
> GCC 3.0 and up used the new (Itanium C++ ABI) mangling, 2.95
Adding gdb-patches, since demangling affects gdb.
Ref: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg00407.html
On 12/07/2018 10:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:27:17AM +, Nick Clifton wrote:
Looks good to me. Independently, do you see a reason not to disable
On 12/7/18 6:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:22 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM Jason Merrill wrote:
Looks good to me. Independently, do you see a reason not to disable the
old demangler entirely?
Like so. Does anyone object to this?
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:22 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > Looks good to me. Independently, do you see a reason not to disable the
> > old demangler entirely?
>
> Like so. Does anyone object to this? These mangling schemes haven't
>
On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:27:17AM +, Nick Clifton wrote:
> >> Looks good to me. Independently, do you see a reason not to disable the
> >> old demangler entirely?
> >
> > Like so. Does anyone object to this? These mangling schemes haven't
> > been relevant in decades.
>
> I am not really
Hi Jason,
>> Looks good to me. Independently, do you see a reason not to disable the
>> old demangler entirely?
>
> Like so. Does anyone object to this? These mangling schemes haven't
> been relevant in decades.
I am not really familiar with this old scheme, so please excuse my ignorance
in
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> Looks good to me. Independently, do you see a reason not to disable the
> old demangler entirely?
Like so. Does anyone object to this? These mangling schemes haven't
been relevant in decades.
commit
11 matches
Mail list logo
