On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 12:17 AM Simon Sobisch via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > As noted: the first question is: is it reasonable to add support for > GnuCOBOL?
It seems fine to me to add support for demangling GnuCOBOL symbol names controlled by a DMGL option (options are defined in include/demangle.h). > * How would the demangler know it is to be called? Just "best match" > (GnuCOBOL modules always have some symbols in it which should be > available if there is any debugging information in, if that helps)? > * Giving the work of gcc-cobol which was discussed on this mailing list > some months ago (not sure about its current state) there possibly will > be a COBOL support be "integrated" - with possibly different name > mangling. But still - GnuCOBOL is used "in the wild" (for production > environments) since years (and will be for many years to come, both > based on GCC and with other compilers) and the name mangling rules did > not change. The demangler doesn't see a list of symbol names, it only sees a single string at a time. If GnuCOBOL symbols are to be demangled by default, then there must be a clear distinction between COBOL names and other names. For example, C++ demangled names, with a few minor exceptions, always start with "_Z". If there is no such marker then we would have to require that the names only be demangle with a DMGL option. There could be a corresponding command line option for c++filt. Ian
