On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 08:36:02PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 05:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:29:43PM +0100, Gary Benson wrote:
> >>I've added the result to the demangler test suite, but I know of
> >>no way to check the validity of the demangled symbol other than by
> >>inspection (and I am no expert here!) If anybody knows a way to
> >>check this then please let me know! Otherwise, I hope this
> >>not-really-checked demangled version is acceptable.
> >Unfortunately this patch broke GCC bootstrap.
> >cp-demangle.c isn't used just in libiberty, where using hashtab,
> >xcalloc, XNEW etc. is fine, but also in libsupc++/libstdc++, where
> >none of that is fine. That is why cp-demangle.c only uses e.g. realloc,
> >checks for allocation failures and propagates those to the caller
> >if they happen (see allocation_failure field). hashtab.o isn't linked
> >into libstdc++ nor libsupc++, and the question is if we really do want to
> >link all the hashtable code into libstdc++.
> >How many hash table entries are there typically? Is a hashtable required?
> This is now bootstrap/58386. IMHO we should for the time being
> revert the patch, the required modifications don't seem trivial.
Agreed, can you please revert it?
Jakub
