[PATCH] D50828: Add profiling and canonicalization support to demangler nodes. No functionality change intended.

[Zachary Turner via llvm-commits]

Yea, I agree it’s mostly bugfixes. My hypothesis is that bugfixes are, on
average, pretty small and isolated, so it shouldn’t be too hard to port one
between the two even if they evolve separately. I’m curious what Erik
thinks though.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:36 PM Chandler Carruth via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> chandlerc added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50828#1203493, @zturner wrote:
>
> > Another option is to simply move it into support and say that going
> forward
> >  merges to libcxxabi might get more difficult. Perhaps this isn’t so bad
> >  though. Isn’t the itanium demangler mostly complete?
>
>
> I think the primary changes we want to share will be bugfixes. There have
> been a lot of those over the past few years. Not sure how many are left?
>
> > If the potential for
> >  future changes to it is low, maybe this is an acceptable tradeoff. Then
> we
> >  could just move it to support, use it and evolve it any way we want
> with no
> >  restrictions, and when new functionality gets added to the itanium
> mangler
> >  that needs to be port to libcxxabi, it’s a little more effort than a
> simple
> >  copy paste because you have to think about it some.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> FWIW, I think this is mostly a question for the maintainers. I'm happy for
> them to somewhat dictate what works w.r.t. sharing the logic between the
> two domains given the (perhaps frustrating) constraints here.
>
>
> Repository:
>   rL LLVM
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D50828
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20180816/e2855b53/attachment.html>