labath added a comment. In D76168#1925176 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76168#1925176>, @shafik wrote:
> Long-term I would like to modify clang to stop doing that for LLDB, but LLDB > will still have to support older compilers for a while. So I think this fix > is still needed. So is this some alternative to D75761 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75761> (where we'd use CPlusPlusNameParser to decode DW_AT_names of templates)? If so, I think that is an interesting direction, but beware that that class is kind of meant for processing the demangler output. The contents of DW_AT_name looks a bit like a demangled name, but in reality there are some deviations from that format (which is why I did not recommend this direction initially -- but I am not against it either). Also it looks like llvm and gnu demanglers disagree on the exact formatting of demangled operator names: $ c++filt _ZlsI1AEvT_S1_ void operator<< <A>(A, A) $ llvm-cxxfilt _ZlsI1AEvT_S1_ void operator<<<A>(A, A) I think the gnu format is superior (and unambiguous) so we could change llvm to match that -- and this change probably won't require any kind of compatibility hacks. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76168/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76168 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
