search for: undecoratesymbolname

...; Hi, > > We have a demangler for the Itanium ABI, but looks like we don't have > one for the MSVC-style symbols. Is there any good demangler we can > import to LLVM? > > If there's no suitable demangler, I'd like to write one. Currently, we > are using `UnDecorateSymbolName` function, but the function is > available only on Windows (which is problematic when you are doing a > cross-build), and the function is not thread-safe. These two seem to > be an enough reason to have our own demanler. > I'm not aware of a suitable one, currently. I ag...

...erified against > the Windows API when run on Windows, and against canned output on > non-Windows. > That was my preference too, but looks like getting the exact same results as the Windows API is not that easy nor worthwhile when it comes to arbitrary formatting rules. For example, IIRC, UnDecorateSymbolName generates not "int const* const* x" nor "int const * const * x" but "int const* const * x". This is simply odd, and I'd guess we don't want to mimic all these corner cases. So mixing our own demangler and the Windows demangler can cause unnecessary churn. -----...

Hi, We have a demangler for the Itanium ABI, but looks like we don't have one for the MSVC-style symbols. Is there any good demangler we can import to LLVM? If there's no suitable demangler, I'd like to write one. Currently, we are using `UnDecorateSymbolName` function, but the function is available only on Windows (which is problematic when you are doing a cross-build), and the function is not thread-safe. These two seem to be an enough reason to have our own demanler. Rui -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:...

...at 12:49 PM Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > We have clang/lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp, so looks like what I should do > is to write code that do the reverse of it. One thing I should be careful > is to produce the exact same outputs as Microsoft's UnDecorateSymbolName > function would output so that the behavior doesn't change between Windows > and non-Windows platforms, but it probably shouldn't be hard. > 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...

...program that verified against the Windows API when run on Windows, and against canned output on non-Windows. That was my preference too, but looks like getting the exact same results as the Windows API is not that easy nor worthwhile when it comes to arbitrary formatting rules. For example, IIRC, UnDecorateSymbolName generates not "int const* const* x" nor "int const * const * x" but "int const* const * x". This is simply odd, and I'd guess we don't want to mimic all these corner cases. So mixing our own demangler and the Windows demangler can cause unnecessary churn. -----...

...dows, and against canned output on >> non-Windows. >> >> >> >> That was my preference too, but looks like getting the exact same results >> as the Windows API is not that easy nor worthwhile when it comes to >> arbitrary formatting rules. For example, IIRC, UnDecorateSymbolName >> generates not "int const* const* x" nor "int const * const * x" but "int >> const* const * x". This is simply odd, and I'd guess we don't want to >> mimic all these corner cases. So mixing our own demangler and the Windows >> demangle...

...Windows. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That was my preference too, but looks like getting the exact same >>>> results as the Windows API is not that easy nor worthwhile when it comes to >>>> arbitrary formatting rules. For example, IIRC, UnDecorateSymbolName >>>> generates not "int const* const* x" nor "int const * const * x" but "int >>>> const* const * x". This is simply odd, and I'd guess we don't want to >>>> mimic all these corner cases. So mixing our own demangler and the W...

Hi, The question about the name mangling gave me an idea that it can be used to automate registration of DLL functions. Instead of manually creating Function objects specifying a return type and argument types which is error-prone and time-consuming one can get a list of functions exported from a DLL using Windows API, demangle each name and construct a Function object from it. Is there any

Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> writes: > Victor Zverovich wrote: >> I am considering a possibility of using LLVM JIT for an algebraic >> modelling language. I have already done some prototyping following the >> Kaleidoscope tutorial and currently thinking of how to connect the >> jitted code to a runtime library (for this language) which I would like

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 >>