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 changes, and the "double"/"triple" symbols are there precisely because the ABI says so. Except for a vtable/typeinfo/name group (which reeks of actual doubled code) all lines in your output are constructors, destructors and thunks to destructors. Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
