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

Reply via email to