https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82724
--- Comment #6 from David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Paul Robinson from comment #5) > (In reply to David Blaikie from comment #4) > > What I'm saying is consumers already have to parse it to match up the same > > type name between compilers. > > Consumers of objects produced by gcc or unmodified clang do, yes. > Not that it's a good thing, it's just engineering reality. > > > Does the Sony debugger? > > The Sony debugger throws away the <params> part and reconstructs info > to its liking from the template children. Good to understand > Given that the Sony debugger doesn't have to contend with gcc-produced > objects, and we have our own clang that does what we want, we're happy. > I'm just pointing out that gcc and upstream clang are doing something > that is reasonably viewed as non-conformant and consumer-unfriendly. > > It's the non-conformant part that mostly irks me. Aside from that, > as long as compilers and debuggers understand each other that's the > important thing. > > But you raised this bug really to point out an inconsistency within gcc > and that's worth addressing. Which way it goes is not a big deal for me. > You cc'd me on the bug, which I took as a chance to say my piece, and > thanks for the opportunity. *nod* Thanks for chiming in - didn't mean to be too offputting, seemed good to have all these views down here so GCC folks can consider them when figuring out what to do with this bug.
