> On Jan 25, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Erik Pilkington
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm not at all familiar with LLDB, but I've been doing some work on the
> demangler in libcxxabi. It's still a work in progress and I haven't yet
> copied the changes over to ItaniumDemangle, which AFAIK is what lldb uses.
>
That's along the same lines as what I was thinking. We really don't need to
print all these names, and in fact the complicated ones are not useful for
printing and certainly there are few times where you want to use them in their
explicit forms. We really just want to pick out pieces to put in
specialized -> specified
Jim
> On Jan 25, 2018, at 10:30 AM, Jim Ingham via lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
> specialized
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
I must admit I've never played around with C++ demangling, but I wonder if our
purposes in demangling might inform how we do this?
We use demangled names for a couple of purposes. One is to print names in
backtraces and thread reporting when we stop. For the most part the requests
we've gotte
Hi,
I'm not at all familiar with LLDB, but I've been doing some work on the
demangler in libcxxabi. It's still a work in progress and I haven't yet
copied the changes over to ItaniumDemangle, which AFAIK is what lldb
uses. The demangler in libcxxabi now demangles the symbol you attached
in 3.3
The mangled name length threshold would be the easiest to implement.
However, I fear we may not be able to find a good cutoff length,
because it's not the length of it that matters, but the number (and
recursiveness) of back-references. For example, I was able to find a
mangled name of 757 characte
