[llvm-dev] VC C++ demangler

[Zachary Turner via llvm-dev]

Please add me on reviews.  BTW, even differing in whitespace might cause
problems, I know their tools have some builtin assumptions about whitespace
in type names.  How deeply engrained this is is not clear though.

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:10 AM Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> FYI, I started writing a demangler. I think I can send an initial patch to
> review in a few days.
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If it's only whitespace differences, that's easy to accommodate.  If
>>> there are other cases that don't work, maybe don't use this tactic for
>>> those, if we have a good reason for being different.  As they say, don't
>>> throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>>>
>>
>> I'll try to keep the difference only in whitespace.
>>
>>
>>> --paulr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:39 AM
>>> *To:* Rui Ueyama; Robinson, Paul
>>> *Cc:* Martin J. O'Riordan; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] VC C++ demangler
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, may well be the case - I don't /think/ LLVM quite matches the
>>> exact syntax of the GCC demangler either (I seem to recall constants as
>>> non-type template parameters were a bit different).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:36 AM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just to be clear - once LLVM has its own demangler, it should probably
>>> use it on all platforms, so there'd be no worry about different behavior
>>> between LLVM on Windows and LLVM elsewhere.
>>>
>>> But that said, it's probably still important/worthwhile to make sure
>>> it's consistent with the platform demangler.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I would be all for a unit test program that verified against
>>> the Windows API when run on Windows, and against canned output on
>>> non-Windows.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That was my preference too, but looks like getting the exact same
>>> results as the Windows API is not that easy nor worthwhile when it comes to
>>> arbitrary formatting rules. For example, IIRC, UnDecorateSymbolName
>>> generates not "int const* const* x" nor "int const * const * x" but "int
>>> const* const * x". This is simply odd, and I'd guess we don't want to
>>> mimic all these corner cases. So mixing our own demangler and the Windows
>>> demangler can cause unnecessary churn.
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170624/3439a4e8/attachment.html>