On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Sterling Augustine > <saugust...@google.com> wrote: >> This is the second in the series of patches to make c decl pretty printing >> more closely match the demangler. A full explanation is here: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00512.html >> >> OK for mainline? > > Now I realize something that is wrong with the previous patch. > Writing 'const T*' in C++ is very much wide spread style is also the > style used in the C++ standard, TC++PL (the de facto popular reference > TC++PL), > our own C++ standard library implementation, and many popular modern > C++ textbooks. > It is a strongly well established style. > Changing the pretty printer to satisfy the demangler as opposed to users > look wrong headed.
I'm most definitely not trying to satisfy the demangler--I'm trying to make GCC's naming consistent with the rest of the tool chain, which will be good for users. Consider the C++ function: int foo(const char *bar); The problem is that the toolchain disagrees on the canonical pretty-name of this function. If you use nm, objdump, or readelf, or anything that must recover the name from the binary, you will see: int foo(char const*) The demangler follows the documented gnu_v3 demangling convention. As far as I can tell, the C++ front end is ad-hoc. This disagreement creates inconsistencies in the debugging information that is confusing to users. Do you have a suggestion for fixing the disagreement? I would love to add this as a parameter somewhere, but the decision is very deep in the internals of the pretty printer. Sterling
