> I'm pretty sure Timothee based his patch onto LLDB/LLVM trunk. indeed, see instructions here: https://github.com/timotheecour/dtools/blob/master/dtools/lldbdplugin.d
> Seems like they prefer a shared library and not rewriting it in C++ [1]. indeed, I would not support something that requires rewriting demangle in C++ for obvious reasons (lots of useless work, gets out of sync etc). > BTW, there's also GNU libiberty, bart of binutils, which Iain claims have > better support for demangling D symbols than core.demangler. IIRC he wrote that, so we'd need an unbiased opinion :) But more importantly, libiberty is not up to date with latest features in core.demangle (eg back references etc). Also, I'd like to know in what way it'd be better. I had to make some small modifications to core.demangle to avoid https://github.com/timotheecour/dtools/issues/2 ; it works, but a bit ugly (see https://github.com/timotheecour/dtools/issues/2 for discussion) On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 at 20:25:10 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 at 18:19:13 UTC, Luís Marques wrote: >>> >>> On my LLVM fork for RISC-V and MSP430 work it doesn't build (no >>> llvm/Support/DJB.h) and on the latest stable, 5.0.1, cmake fails to >>> configure (Unknown CMake command "add_llvm_install_targets"). >> >> >> LLDB and LLVM need to be version synchronized. Did you checkout LLVM and >> LLDB both from their respective same-named release branches? > > > I'm pretty sure Timothee based his patch onto LLDB/LLVM trunk. > > -Johan