similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld] adding demangler for symbol resolution

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 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

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

On 10/7/2013 3:23 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Oct 4, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. >> >> For example : a x86 ELF file can be given to lld when the target is x86_64. Similiarly with other flavors. >> >> I was thinking to have a varargs function in the

Could you elaborate a bit about the issue that you are trying to solve with this suggestion? On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > Hi Nick, Bigcheese, > > Resurrecting a old thread. > > Now since we have a Registry that models Readers, do we want to have a > function in the Registry that evaluates whether a file should be

On June 22, 2017 at 5:51:39 AM, Pavel Labath (labath at google.com) wrote: I don't have any concrete feedback, but: - +1 for removing the "FastDemagler" - If you already construct an AST as a part of your demangling process, would it be possible to export that AST for external consumption somehow? Right now in lldb we sometimes need to parse the demangled name (to get the

Hi Nick, On 8/27/2013 12:45 AM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:20 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: >> Can we add deadStrip() to undefinedAtoms as well ? >> >> This will enable to choose whether we want to set the property deadStripNormal or deadStripNever on them. >> >> Also I think it will be cleaner for atoms to be added to deadStripRoot set using 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)

On 10/4/2013 11:16 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. >> >> For example : a x86 ELF file can be given to lld when the target is >> x86_64. Similiarly with other flavors. >> >> I was thinking

Hi, It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. For example : a x86 ELF file can be given to lld when the target is x86_64. Similiarly with other flavors. I was thinking to have a varargs function in the LinkingContext that would be overridden by each of the LinkingContexts to verify files after being read. The reader would call the varargs function in the LinkingContext and

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 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

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > On 10/4/2013 11:16 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org >> >**wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. >>> >>> For example

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 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

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.

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 Nick, On 9/20/2013 5:59 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Sep 20, 2013, at 3:42 PM, Shankar Easwaran > <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> nextFile could pass the current resolver state at the time when its called, the linkingcontext can return the next file to be processed as below :- >> >> nextFile(currentResolverState) :- >> >> a) Returns the next

(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