Le 6 juil. 2011 à 18:40, Pierre Vittet a écrit : > On 06/07/2011 18:25, Kevin André wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 18:00, Pierre Vittet<pier...@pvittet.com> wrote: >> >> >>> I would like user of the plugin to give in arguments the name of the >>> functions on which he would like a test to be run. That means that I must >>> convert the string containing a function name (like "myclass::init") and get >>> either the mangled name or the tree corresponding to the function. I know >>> that there might be several results (functions with the same name and >>> different arguments), a good policy for me would be to recover every >>> concerned functions (at least for the moment). >>> >>> I guess what I want to do is possible, because there are already some tools >>> doing it (like gdb). >>> >> Are you absolutely sure about gdb? It could be doing it the other way >> around, i.e. start from the mangled names in the object file and >> demangle all of them. Then it would search for a function name in its >> list of demangled names. >> Just guessing, though :) >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Kevin André >> >> > Hello, > > no I am not sure, but I guess it would really have an important cost to do it > like you said. Would it no be easier to have a field containing the > 'demangled' names? At least in debug since it has an important space > complexity. > > Thanks! > > Pierre Vittet
Hello, Have you considered the reverse way to do that. I mean, why don't you hook on the PLUGIN_PRE_GENERICIZE event to catch all function bodies, and then compare the argument the user gave you to current_function_name() (that will returns you the full protoype of the current function, ie: malloc full name is "void* malloc(size_t)"). Then, you can store the FUNCTION_DECL tree if there's a match and use it for later processing. That's how i proceed for my plugins. Romain Geissler
