JDevlieghere added a comment. In D118812#3291482 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118812#3291482>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D118812#3291303 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118812#3291303>, @jingham wrote: > >> In D118812#3291109 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118812#3291109>, @dblaikie >> wrote: >> >>> Any chance you might want a limit on the size of the demangled name too? >>> (might be worth considering what the most densely encoded mangled name is >>> (ie: what's the longest name that could be produced by a 10k long mangled >>> name? and see if that's worth having another cutoff for) >> >> Ironically, lldb seldom cares about most of the goo in these long demangled >> names. At this point, we are building up our fast-lookup "name indexes". >> We really only care about extracting the fully scoped names of the methods. >> When we get around to doing smart matching on overloads, we can still pull >> out all the matches to the method name, and then do the overload match on >> the results. That should be sufficiently efficient, and obviate the need to >> do any fancy indexing based on overloads. So most of the work of demangling >> these names is not being used anyway. >> >> So what would be the better solution for lldb on the demangling front would >> be a way to tell the demangler "only extract the full method name, and don't >> bother producing the argument list or return values". But I have no idea >> how easy that would be in the demangler. > > I think there's an API level of the demangler in LLVM designed for rewriting > demangled names (@rsmith created/implemented that, I think) - I'm not sure if > it's structured to allow lazy parsing/stopping after you get the base name, > for instance, but maybe... We should definitely look into that as a general optimization for indexing the string table and would make sense in combination with D118814 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118814>. For this particular patch, we're trying to avoid demangling at all if the symbol is too long, so unless a partial demangle is really cheap (it might be) we'd still want to exclude symbols based on their mangled length. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D118812/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D118812 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
