Re: Really obscure C++ mangling error with -fnew-abi

["Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>]

> The way the ABI committee mangling discussions have played out, as I
> perceive them at least, is that the normative statements have been
> adjusted to suit this philosophy.  As I understand it, the name of the
> function without its full signature was deemed by the committee as
> inappropriate for substitution.  Did you get a different read?

No, that was exactly the agreement. However, the rationale was that
there was potential confusion with other substitution candidates
(types with the same name), and I still think that the same kind of
confusion can arise with the template name inside a function name.

> Issues of the specification aside, do you see anything technically
> wrong with the mangling scheme as currently implemented in g++?

Since it is apparently possible to demangle it to its original state,
it looks alright. I'm more worried that others may get other
interpretations, defeating the purpose of the ABI. As soon as *two*
implementation of the spec interoperate, it is likely that the spec
will be changed in case of doubt. Until then, there is still the
danger that the spec stays and your (our) implementation needs to
adjust.

Regards,
Martin