search for: fastdemangl

...ch? Does this seem > like a good direction for the demangler? > > As far as future plans for this file, I have a few more > refactorings and performance improvements that I'd like to get > through. After that, it might be interesting to try to replace the > FastDemangle.cpp demangler in LLDB with this, to restore the one > true demangler in the source tree. The FastDemangler.cpp is only > partially completed, and calls out to ItaniumDemangle.cpp in llvm > (which is a copy of cxa_demangle.cpp) if it fails to parse the symbol. > > Any...

...the C++ demangler, but it ended up being too slow. On that note, the demangler is a performance bottleneck for lldb. Going to the fast demangler over the system one was a big performance win. Maybe the system demangler is fast enough nowadays, but if it isn't then we can't get rid of the FastDemangler. Jim > On Jun 22, 2017, at 8:08 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 22 June 2017 at 15:21, Erik Pilkington <erik.pilkington at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On June 22, 2017 at 5:51:39 AM, Pavel Labath (labath...

...e patch? Does this seem like a >> good direction for the demangler? >> >> As far as future plans for this file, I have a few more refactorings and >> performance improvements that I'd like to get through. After that, it might >> be interesting to try to replace the FastDemangle.cpp demangler in LLDB with >> this, to restore the one true demangler in the source tree. The >> FastDemangler.cpp is only partially completed, and calls out to >> ItaniumDemangle.cpp in llvm (which is a copy of cxa_demangle.cpp) if it >> fails to parse the symbol. >>...

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

...Does anyone have any early feedback on the patch? Does this seem like a good direction for the demangler? As far as future plans for this file, I have a few more refactorings and performance improvements that I'd like to get through. After that, it might be interesting to try to replace the FastDemangle.cpp demangler in LLDB with this, to restore the one true demangler in the source tree. The FastDemangler.cpp is only partially completed, and calls out to ItaniumDemangle.cpp in llvm (which is a copy of cxa_demangle.cpp) if it fails to parse the symbol. Any thoughts here would be appreciated!...