https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445235
--- Comment #14 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> --- (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #10) > So one simple question might be whether we actually want to demangle Ada? > It looks like the mangling is so simple (. -> __, add _ada_ for "top-level" > functions) that people might just be used to the mangled representation. > If we now start to demangle it wouldn't that also change suppressions? Effectively, typically there is no real difficulty to read the mangled Ada names. E.g. I am regularly using kcachegrind to look at callgrind perf results, and kcachegrind shows mangled names that can be interpreted without much difficulties. For what concerns suppressions: our suppressions are using mangled names. The user manual documents explicitly for c++ that mangled names have to be used for suppressions. Suppression matching is not calling the demangler (see m_errormgr.c foComplete). This is calling VG_(get_fname_no_cxx_demangle). I will imagine that then no demangler at all will be called. So, if ever the Ada demangler is made working, I do not think that this will impact suppression matching (and it would be better that this does not impact supp matching as otherwise that will be a significant backward incompatible change). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
