fdeazeve 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
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> 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.
Honestly the optimizer is pretty good at doing those, look at the IR:
https://godbolt.org/z/PY3TeadbM
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
