[llvm-dev] VC C++ demangler

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev]

I uploaded a FYI patch (not intended for submission) as
https://reviews.llvm.org/D34667. If you want to take a look and comment on
its design, please do so. Thanks!

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> 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/20170626/d17e90b3/attachment.html>