This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [cxx-abi-dev] Re: Mistake in C++ ABI substitution rules?
- From: Jim Dehnert <dehnert at transmeta dot com>
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, cxx-abi-dev at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:53:27 -0800
- Subject: Re: [cxx-abi-dev] Re: Mistake in C++ ABI substitution rules?
- References: <200202201757.JAA23109@atrus.synopsys.com>
It was certainly intended as must. My mistake, probably. As Joe
points out, it's not portable otherwise, so there's not much choice.
Joe Buck wrote:
> > > "Logically, the substitutable components of a mangled name are
> > > considered left-to-right, components before the composite structure
> > > of which they are a part. If a component has been encountered
> > > before, it is substituted as described below. This decision is
> > > independent of whether its components have been substituted,
> > > so an implementation MAY OPTIMIZE by considering large structures
> > > for substitution before their components. If a component has not
> > > been encountered before, its mangling is identified, and it is
> > > added to a dictionary of substitution candidates. No entity is
> > > added to the dictionary twice." (emphasis mine)
> Mark writes:
> > I think that "may" should be "must".
> If all the folks who implemented the ABI interpreted it that way, we
> have no problem with s/may/must/. But if some did not, then we don't
> have a portable ABI, someone will have to make changes.