JDevlieghere added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Core/Mangled.cpp:61
+ // Swift's older style of mangling used "_T" as a mangling prefix. This can
+ // lead to false positives with other symbols that just so happen to start
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> Feel free to completely ignore this, it's a pointless micro optimization.
>
> I'm curious if it would be more efficient to write this as
>
> ```
> switch (name[0]) {
> case '?': return Mangled::eManglingSchemeMSVC;
> case '_':
> switch(name[1]) {
> ...
> }
> case '$':
> switch(name[1]) {
> ...
> }
> ```
> or if it would actually be slower than the chain of "vector" comparisons we
> have right now?
I actually started writing a similar comment before discarding it. Even if this
code is as hot as I expect it to be, I don't think it would outweigh the
complexity and the potential for bugs. I really like how you can glance at the
code and see the different mangling schemes and that's the first thing we'd
lose. Anyway happy to be proven wrong too.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158470/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158470
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
