labath added a comment.
It sounds like we have a plan then! Look forward to seeing the results.
================
Comment at: source/Core/RichManglingInfo.cpp:36-40
+RichManglingContext::SetLegacyCxxParserInfo(const ConstString &mangled) {
+ m_info.ResetProvider();
+ m_info.m_provider = RichManglingInfo::PluginCxxLanguage;
+ m_info.m_legacy_parser = new CPlusPlusLanguage::MethodName(mangled);
+ return &m_info;
----------------
sgraenitz wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > sgraenitz wrote:
> > > labath wrote:
> > > > Is this really the **mangled** name?
> > > Yes, it is.
> > How is that possible? I see nothing in CPlusPlusLanguage::MethodName which
> > would perform the demangling, and yet it clearly operates on demangled
> > names. Also, the LHS of this patch creates MethodName instances like this
> > `CPlusPlusLanguage::MethodName
> > cxx_method(mangled.GetDemangledName(lldb::eLanguageTypeC_plus_plus));`
> >
> >
> Oh right, I should revisit that.
>
> While we are here: It's a pity that only MSVC-mangled names trigger the
> fallback case with the new implementation. Thus, my unit test has no coverage
> for it and I didn't recognize the mistake. I thought about integrating
> ObjCLanguage parsing here too. On the one hand this would improve test
> coverage. On the other hand it would cause a semantic change in name indexing
> (and my ObjC knowledge is quite limited).
>
> What do you think?
I understand Zachary is working on an MSVC demangler as we speak. When that's
finished, we should be able to add a couple of MSVC mangled names to your test
case. (The `MethodName` class itself is tested elsewhere, so here we just need
to test that things are wired up correctly.)
As for the ObjC idea, I am not sure what exactly would that entail, so I don't
have an opinion on it. But I can certainly believe that there is a lot of room
for improvement here.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50071
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
