On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 4:00 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 12/7/18 12:48 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> 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 hasn't worked properly in years, and after this it would be > > guaranteed not to. > > So, here's the patch to tear out the old code, which passes the GCC > regression testsuite. I also tried building binutils/gdb with it, and > both will need to remove code that calls cplus_mangle_opname for dealing > with the old mangling scheme.
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 to start with? Jason