similar to: VC C++ demangler

A long time ago, when I devised the grammar and structure of the Microsoft C++ name mangling scheme (decorated names), the document describing the object model and the name decoration scheme were made publically available. Perhaps this is still available publically, or perhaps Microsoft might be willing to share an up to date definition of the name-decoration grammar, especially in light of the

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 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

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 >

If it's only whitespace differences, that's easy to accommodate. If there are other cases that don't work, maybe don't use this tactic for those, if we have a good reason for being different. As they say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. --paulr From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:39 AM To: Rui Ueyama; Robinson, Paul

FYI, I started writing a demangler. I think I can send an initial patch to review in a few days. On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > wrote: > >> If it's only whitespace differences, that's easy to accommodate. If >> there are other cases

I uploaded a FYI patch (not intended for submission) as https://reviews.llvm.org/D34667. If you want to take a look and comment on its design, please do so. Thanks! On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > Please add me on reviews. BTW, even differing in whitespace might cause > problems, I know their tools have some builtin assumptions about

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

> 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

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

I really want to start simple. So if adding a demangler the first objective is to add one that lets us drop the HAVE_CXXABI_H. After that it can be expanded. Cheers, Rafael On 5 May 2016 at 08:58, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 5 May 2016, at 13:47, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> * Is having an

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 >>

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>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

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

In the same way that the core LLVM libraries have support routines for DWARF, I think that both mangling and demangling should be provided as well. I suspect that the 'Support' library is the best we have, although eventually we need to split this library up a bit. That's not really your problem though. The bigger problem is that we don't have any good way of sharing code between

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 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 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

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

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

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)