similar to: Using the LLVM demangler.

> 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. >

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.

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 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 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

We are trying out lld ELF on windows. It works great, but a big difference from running it on linux is that it cannot demangle c++ names since there is no itanium demangler available on windows. We have an implementation in libcxxabi/src/cxa_demangle.cpp. I see that there was some discussion about having a version of that in lib/Support, but I don't think a patch was ever posted. So, some

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

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

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 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 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

On 6/22/17 7:50 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 04:42:40PM -0700, Erik Pilkington via llvm-dev wrote: >> I've been working on fixing this by parsing first into an AST structure, and >> then traversing that AST to produce a demangled string. This provides a >> significant performance improvement and also make the demangler somewhat

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Asiri Rathnayake < asiri.rathnayake at gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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

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 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

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

well, top-of-branch lldb uses this code, that's how I found it. Do you mean libc++'s demangler? FYI when I said 14+% (and now it's 17%), 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>

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > 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

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 >>

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