Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I see that you are asking for unmangled function names whereas the current patch supports only mangled names. I can print unmangled names under another option. Would that work?
Thanks, Sharad On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Sharad Singhai <sing...@google.com> wrote: > Since the updated patch already uses unmangled function names, is it > good to commit then? > > Sharad > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: >>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Sharad Singhai <sing...@google.com> wrote: >>> > Okay, I liked the idea of self-descriptive tags. I have updated the >>> > patch based on your suggestions. I have simplified the format >>> > somewhat. Instead of repeating function name, I use a 'function' tag >>> > with the format >>> > >>> > function:<name>,<line number>,<execution count> >>> >>> Sound nice. >>> >>> > I also dropped the unmangled function names, they were turning out to >>> > be too unreadable and not really useful in this context. >>> >>> Ah, I'd argue for mangled names. Every one knows they can stream through >>> c++filt and get unmangled, but once you unmangle, you can never go back. >>> Also, the mangled version is significantly smaller. For c, it is >>> irrelevant, for c++, it makes a big difference. >> >> I would also support unmangled variant. Otherwise the patch seems resonable >> to me. >> >> Honza >>> > >> >
