This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Add ifunc attribute
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:00 AM, Roland McGrath<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Your proposal requires determining the mangling from the return type
>> and the ifunc attribute argument.
> That's true. ?You could alternatively allow/require a protoyped-name inside
> the "" to resolve overloading.
>> That's even more weird than HJs proposal.
> I have to disagree thoroughly.
>> No, I'm not serious.
> Your example is macroably identical to HJ's proposal.
> I'm glad to see that you agree it's a laughably insane syntax. ;-)
>> Keep it simple please, build on existing features.
> What I have proposed for C is the most like existing features such as
> alias. ?HJ's proposal is the severe departure IMHO. ?The natural extension
> of the C syntax I proposed to C++ is indeed more bizarre, because, well,
> it's C++, so what do you expect?
Well, for something that doesn't resort to asm("") for the symbol
name I expect something like your proposal. I just do not see
the need for this and expect us to put the burden of correct
mangling to the user. Mangling errors will result in linker errors
for them, which is IMHO good enough for such a low-level feature.