[lldb-dev] Huge mangled names are causing long delays when loading symbol table symbols
Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jan 24 15:52:12 PST 2018
What about doing a partial demangle? Take at most 1024 (for example)
characters from the mangled name, demangle that, and then display ... at
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:48 PM Greg Clayton via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I have an issue where I am debugging a C++ binary that is around 250MB in
> size. It contains some mangled names that are crazy:
> This de-mangles to something that is 72MB in size and takes 280 seconds
> (try running "time c++filt -n" on the above string).
> There are probably many symbols likes this in this binary. Currently lldb
> will de-mangle all names in the symbol table so that we can chop up the
> names so we know function base names and we might be able to classify a
> base name as a method or function for breakpoint categorization.
> My questions is: how do we work around such issues in LLDB? A few
> solutions I can think of:
> 1 - time each name demangle and if it takes too long somehow stop
> de-mangling similar symbols or symbols over a certain length?
> 2 - allow a setting that says "don't de-mangle names that start with..."
> and the setting has a list of prefixes.
> 3 - have a setting that turns off de-mangling symbols over a certain
> length all of the time with a default of something like 256 or 512
> 4 - modify our FastDemangler to abort if the de-mangled string goes over a
> certain limit to avoid bad cases like this...
> #1 would still mean we get a huge delay (like 280 seconds) when starting
> to debug this binary, but might prevent multiple symbols from adding to
> that delay...
> #2 would require debugging debugging once and then knowing which symbols
> took a while to de-mangle. If we time each de-mangle, we can warn that
> there are large mangled names and print the mangled name so the user might
> #3 would disable de-mangling of long names at the risk of not de-mangling
> names that are close to the limit
> #4 requires that our FastDemangle code can decode the string mangled
> string. The fast de-mangler currently aborts on tricky de-mangling and we
> fall back onto cxa_demangle from the C++ library which doesn't not have a
> cutoff on length...
> Can anyone else think of any other solutions?
> Greg Clayton
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lldb-dev