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 >> > >
