Re: [c++] Another question about demangler output

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
| 
| > Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com> writes:
| > 
| > | Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
| > | 
| > | > The point is this.  "typeof" is a GNU/C++ extension.  Its use in a
| > | > function declaration should be mangled differently from any standard
| > | > C++ construction.  After all, the ABI has provided hook for vendor
| > | > extension. 
| > | 
| > | So you are arguing that this is a bug in g++.
| > 
| > Yes.
| > 
| > | I don't agree.  To me it seems natural that typeof should simply be
| > | replaced by the resulting type when doing name mangling.
| > 
| > Elsewhere, we seem to refrain from "folding".  Which is what I
| > referred to in an earlier message as a schizophrenic position.
| 
| g++ refrains from folding in expressions which appear as template
| arguments.  I don't know whether that is right or wrong.

Yes. Consider but the following case

   struct foo {
     typedef int (*bar)();

     operator bar();

     template<class T>
       operator typeof(T (*)());     
   }; 

if you use typeof to represent int (*)() in the demangled symbol, do
you offer a way to distinguish it from the template instantiation with
T = int (which is a  different function)?

-- Gaby