bulbazord marked an inline comment as done. bulbazord added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Core/Module.cpp:740 + bool user_provided_name_is_mangled = + Mangled::GetManglingScheme(m_name.GetStringRef()) != + Mangled::eManglingSchemeNone; ---------------- labath wrote: > labath wrote: > > I think this is overly aggressive. `_Z3foov` could be a method name in some > > particularly sadistic class. I think you can do this optimization only in > > one direction: if the names match, then return true without consulting the > > language plugin. At that point, I don't think you even need to check > > whether the names are mangled. > Actually, this could go wrong even for names like `_Zonk`, since > `GetManglingScheme` does not check that the string is an actually valid > mangled name -- just that it looks like one from very far away. Then in that case, perhaps this method should always take a demangled name? If it can take mangled names, it seems like a giant pain and potentially pretty expensive to figure out if it's mangled or not, especially given that in the sadistic case a name could look mangled but actually be the demangled name. Am I following your thought correctly? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129682/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129682 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
