Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24293: Use llvm's demangler

2016-09-07 Thread Kate Stone via lldb-commits
k8stone added a comment. Glad to see this change. Maintaining another copy of the same demangler in LLDB is definitely unnecessary. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24293 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24293: Use llvm's demangler

2016-09-07 Thread Rafael Ávila de Espíndola via lldb-commits
rafael closed this revision. rafael added a comment. 280821 https://reviews.llvm.org/D24293 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24293: Use llvm's demangler

2016-09-07 Thread Greg Clayton via lldb-commits
clayborg added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D24293#535928, @zturner wrote: > AFAICT, this patch only changes the case where we were already not able to > use the fast demangler. So nothing should change. Yep, I saw that and that is why I OK'ed the patch. Someone else suggested cutt

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24293: Use llvm's demangler

2016-09-07 Thread Chaoren Lin via lldb-commits
chaoren added a comment. Cool. Would it be a good idea to only use LLVM's demangler? We can get rid of all the messy ifdef business, and I assume the LLVM demangler would be better maintained and more up to date than any system demangler. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24293

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24293: Use llvm's demangler

2016-09-07 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
zturner added a subscriber: zturner. zturner added a comment. AFAICT, this patch only changes the case where we were already not able to use the fast demangler. So nothing should change. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24293 ___ lldb-commits mailing lis

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24293: Use llvm's demangler

2016-09-07 Thread Greg Clayton via lldb-commits
clayborg accepted this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. We need to carefully benchmark any changes in demangling if we are thinking about switching to using llvm::itaniumDemangle() for everything. The demangler that was built into libcxxabi was

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24293: Use llvm's demangler

2016-09-07 Thread Rafael Espíndola via lldb-commits
On 7 September 2016 at 11:35, Chaoren Lin wrote: > chaoren added a comment. > > Cool. Would it be a good idea to only use LLVM's demangler? We can get rid of > all the messy ifdef business, and I assume the LLVM demangler would be better > maintained and more up to date than any system demangler

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24293: Use llvm's demangler

2016-09-07 Thread Rafael Espíndola via lldb-commits
On 7 September 2016 at 10:41, Ed Maste wrote: > emaste added a subscriber: emaste. > emaste added a comment. > > Which library contains `llvm::itaniumDemangle`? lib/Demangle. I will try to make sue a shared library build works and update the thread. Cheers, Rafael __

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D24293: Use llvm's demangler

2016-09-07 Thread Ed Maste via lldb-commits
emaste added a subscriber: emaste. emaste added a comment. Which library contains `llvm::itaniumDemangle`? https://reviews.llvm.org/D24293 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-