search for: r280732

(Again), while trying to improve the performance of lldb, I ran into a bottleneck with the demangler. This may be specific to my platform - Ubuntu 16.04, probably using libstdc++, not libc++. It makes extensive use of std::string and std::vector, and I see memory allocation at the top. I prototyped a version that uses an arena-style memory allocator (you can allocate, but you can't ever

...%), 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> wrote: > I thought the plan of record was (r280732): > > ''' > Once the fast demangler in lldb can handle any names this > implementation can be replaced with it and we will have the one true > demangler. > ''' > > What is the status of lldb's fast demangler? Is it available on Ubuntu > 16.04?...

...Here's a particularly amusing bug of the current libcxxabi demangler: https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=31031 Cheers, / Asiri > > vedant > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > I thought the plan of record was (r280732): > > > > ''' > > Once the fast demangler in lldb can handle any names this > > implementation can be replaced with it and we will have the one true > > demangler. > > ''' > > > > What is the status of lldb's fast demangler...

...ibcxxabi demangler: > https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=31031 > > Cheers, > > / Asiri > > >> >> vedant >> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: >> > I thought the plan of record was (r280732): >> > >> > ''' >> > Once the fast demangler in lldb can handle any names this >> > implementation can be replaced with it and we will have the one true >> > demangler. >> > ''' >> > >> > What is the sta...