sgraenitz added inline comments.
================ Comment at: source/Core/Mangled.cpp:310 +#elif defined(LLDB_USE_LLVM_DEMANGLER) + llvm::ItaniumPartialDemangler IPD; + bool demangle_err = IPD.partialDemangle(mangled_name); ---------------- sgraenitz wrote: > erik.pilkington wrote: > > I think this is going to really tank performance: ItaniumPartialDemangler > > dynamically allocates a pretty big buffer on construction that it uses to > > store the AST (and reuse for subsequent calls to partialDemangle). Is there > > somewhere that you can put IPD it so that it stays alive between demangles? > > > > An alternative, if its more convenient, would be to just put the buffer > > inline into ItaniumPartialDemangler, and `= delete` the move operations. > Thanks for the remark, I didn't dig deep enough to see what's going on in the > `BumpPointerAllocator` class. I guess there is a reason for having > `ASTAllocator` in the `Db` struct as an instance and thus allocating upfront, > instead of having a pointer there and postponing the instantiation to > `Db::reset()`? > > I am not familiar enough with the code yet to know how it will look exactly, > but having a heavy demangler in every `Mangled` per se sounds unreasonable. > There's just too many of them that don't require demangling at all. For each > successfully initiated `partialDemangle()` I will need to keep one of course. > > I will have a closer look on Monday. So far thanks for mentioning that! Well, right the pointer to `BumpPointerAllocator` won't solve anything. Ok will have a look. https://reviews.llvm.org/D49612 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
