search for: demanglers

On 4/2/2014 12:23 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Apr 1, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > >> Hi Nick, Bigcheese, >> >> When lld is used to link C++ code, it would be required to demangle symbol names by default/user driven option. >> >> The Gnu linker has the following options :- >> >> --demangle=[style] >> --no-demangle >>

Hi Nick, Bigcheese, When lld is used to link C++ code, it would be required to demangle symbol names by default/user driven option. The Gnu linker has the following options :- --demangle=[style] --no-demangle I found that clang/llvm-symbolizer use __cxx_demangle function. I would think that lld also need to call the same function, and I think the way we want to demangle is to have the

On 6/21/17 5:42 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > I'm very interested in your work because I've just started writing a > demangler for the Microsoft mangling scheme. What I found in the > current Itanium demangler is the same as you -- it looks like it > allocates too much memory during parsing and concatenates std::strings > too often. I could see there's a (probably big)

On 4/3/2014 12:58 AM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Apr 2, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > >> On 4/2/2014 12:23 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >>> On Apr 1, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: >>> >>>> The API's that would be in LinkingContext would be :- >>>> >>>> * virtual bool canDemangle() = 0; // Does the

This is Greg's area, he'll be able to answer in detail how the name chopper gets used. IIRC it chops demangled names, so it is indirectly a client of the demangler, but it doesn't use the demangler to do this directly. Name lookup is done by finding all the base name matches, then comparing the context. We don't do a very good job of doing fuzzy full name matches - for instance

Hi all, We’re hoping to replace the demangler in some of our tools to use the LLVM demangler. We’d like to enhance it with missing functionality (legal names that it cannot demangle) and provide a set of tests that we use with the demangler that we currently use. The demangler that is currently in the LLVM tree appears to be a copy of the libc++abi implementation, and there appears to be

On June 22, 2017 at 5:51:39 AM, Pavel Labath (labath at google.com) wrote: I don't have any concrete feedback, but: - +1 for removing the "FastDemagler" - If you already construct an AST as a part of your demangling process, would it be possible to export that AST for external consumption somehow? Right now in lldb we sometimes need to parse the demangled name (to get the

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Scott Smith <scott.smith at purestorage.com> > wrote: > > > > well, top-of-branch lldb uses this code, that's how I found it. Do you > mean libc++'s demangler? > > Thanks for explaining, this is the first time

Hi, AFAIK, the tools "symbolizer, objdump and nm" need a demangler. I see there is libcxxabi which provides the demangle library. But there is no support to build libcxxabi on windows with MSVC. This left a huge void and my symbolizer cannot work on Windows if built with MSVC. Instead of mucking around OS dependencies, why shouldn't we have a demangle library in LLVM.

> On Dec 15, 2016, at 6:18 AM, Dave Bozier via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > We’re hoping to replace the demangler in some of our tools to use the LLVM demangler. We’d like to enhance it with missing functionality (legal names that it cannot demangle) and provide a set of tests that we use with the demangler that we currently use. >

...fully functional yet). Seems like a good starting point. > > I don't have a problem with "the one true demangler" living in > lib/Support, but ideally we'd find a way to reuse it in libc++abi so that > we have one, well-tested, implementation. > IIRC, LLDB has two demanglers: one is a copy of the libc++ demangler and the other is a "fast-path" demangler. There are some cases that the fast-path demangler cannot handle which leads it to fall back to the libc++ clone. My professional opinion, having worked a lot with mangling technology, would be for us to wri...

well, top-of-branch lldb uses this code, that's how I found it. Do you mean libc++'s demangler? FYI when I said 14+% (and now it's 17%), I mean the overall performance of starting lldb, not just the demangler itself. It's probably several times faster now with this change (https://reviews.llvm.org/D32500) On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com>

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Asiri Rathnayake < asiri.rathnayake at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Apr 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Scott Smith <scott.smith at purestorage.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > well, top-of-branch lldb

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Just to be clear - once LLVM has its own demangler, it should probably use > it on all platforms, so there'd be no worry about different behavior > between LLVM on Windows and LLVM elsewhere. > > But that said, it's probably still important/worthwhile to make sure it's >

On Jul 4, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: >> Hello! >> >> We want to implement in-process symbolizer for {Address,Thread}Sanitizer >> testing tools that would be based on LLVM libraries. >> I've noticed that llvm-nm (as well as other tools) doesn't demangle

(though, usual caveat: you /usually/ shouldn't be doing that - instead relying only on whatever semantics the IR actually carries, rather than implying extra semantics based on the demangled name) On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:48 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I have not tried it but maybe > > `std::string llvm::demangle(const

...as they cropped up late in various product cycles. >>> I don't have a problem with "the one true demangler" living in lib/Support, but ideally we'd find a way to reuse it in libc++abi so that we have one, well-tested, implementation. >> >> IIRC, LLDB has two demanglers: one is a copy of the libc++ demangler and the other is a "fast-path" demangler. There are some cases that the fast-path demangler cannot handle which leads it to fall back to the libc++ clone. > > I think the goal of the fast-path LLDB demangler was to eventually > be fully-fu...

Hello! We want to implement in-process symbolizer for {Address,Thread}Sanitizer testing tools that would be based on LLVM libraries. I've noticed that llvm-nm (as well as other tools) doesn't demangle C++ names. Is it true, that LLVM doesn't have the code that is capable of that, and if yes, are there any plans to add it? Depending on something like libiberty.a doesn't seem like a

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > Hello! > > We want to implement in-process symbolizer for {Address,Thread}Sanitizer > testing tools that would be based on LLVM libraries. > I've noticed that llvm-nm (as well as other tools) doesn't demangle C++ > names. Is it true, that LLVM doesn't have the code that is capable

On 4/4/2014 3:46 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 3 Apr 2014, at 20:49, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > >> b) I am not planning to write a demangler. I was planning on using abi::__cxx_demangle if there was one available and the first character in the symbol was a _. >> If MSVC was defined, we would use the Undecorate API. > The demangler that