This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:

> Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> | This gives _ZN2BBcvPFivEEv which (currently) demangles as
> |     BB::operator int (*)()()
> | 
> | But using a gcc extension, I can do this without a typedef:
> | 
> | class BB { operator typeof (int(*)())(); };
> | BB::operator typeof (int(*)())() { return 0; }
> 
> If you do that, then you might end up accpeting two different
> declarations as same where the token-oriented scheme (ODR) would have
> kept them separate.  That is, you would not be able to differentiate
> 
> tu1.C:
> 
>   struct B { operator typeof(int(*)())(); };
> 
> from
> 
> tu2.C:
> 
>   struct B { typedef int (*foo)(); operator foo(); };
> 
> ODR says they are different.

I don't think it does.  It says you can only have one of them in any
given program, but that's not the same as being different for linkage
purposes.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]