search for: demangles

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

...; string. This provides a significant performance improvement and > also make the demangler somewhat more clean. Attached you should > find a patch to this effect. This patch is still very much a work > in progress, but currently passes the libcxxabi test suite and > demangles all the symbols in LLVM identically to the current > demangler. It also provides a significant performance improvement: > it demangles the symbols in LLVM about 3.7 times faster than the > current demangler. Also, separating the formatting code from the > parser reduces...

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

...ngled string. This provides a >> significant performance improvement and also make the demangler somewhat >> more clean. Attached you should find a patch to this effect. This patch is >> still very much a work in progress, but currently passes the libcxxabi test >> suite and demangles all the symbols in LLVM identically to the current >> demangler. It also provides a significant performance improvement: it >> demangles the symbols in LLVM about 3.7 times faster than the current >> demangler. Also, separating the formatting code from the parser reduces >>...

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. >

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +Kate > > We already have two demangler implementations (LLDB and libcxxabi). I'd > rather not have three. Have you looked at the LLDB one? I think Kate has > some patches she hasn't had a chance to commit yet that add functionality. > I heard something

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

> On May 5, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2016-May-05, at 11:14, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> +Kate >>> >>> We already have two

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