jingham added a comment. In D118814#3296008 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D118814#3296008>, @labath wrote:
> This seems fine, though it's not clear to me what is the effect of this patch > in terms of functionality. Does the "side-effect" mentioned by Jim still > apply here, or is this NFC now? Either is probably fine, but I'd like to > understand what is going on. It seems like it should be NFC, but does that > mean that the demangling (and the cpu/memory cost) is delayed until the first > operation which requests it (such as matching a breakpoint by the full > demangled name) ? I haven't gone back to read our lookups in detail, but I certainly hope that the first time we see a breakpoint on a symbol name we don't recognize, we wouldn't go demangling every symbol name in the system. We really try to keep mistypings from cascading into "unpack the entire world" events. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D118814/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D118814 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
