Re: Decorate C prototypes

[tom fogal <tfogal at alumni dot unh dot edu>]

Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com> writes:
> tom fogal wrote:
> > Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com> writes:
> >> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> 2. We should verify that the compiler accepts
> >>>
> >>>   extern "C" void abort(void);
> >>>   namespace std {
> >>>     extern "C" void abort(void) throw();
> >>>   }
> >>>
> >>> and:
> >>>
> >>>   namespace std {
> >>>     extern "C" void abort(void) throw();
> >>>   }
> >>>   extern "C" void abort(void);
> >>>
> >>> That's important in case a user explicitly declares the function, or
> >>> #include's the C header.
> >> gcc 4.3.1 (the latest I have access to at the moment) does accept
> >> this even though it's ill-formed according to [except.spec], p2:
> >>
> >>    If any declaration of a function has an exception-specification,
> >>    all declarations, including the definition and an explicit
> >>    specialization, of that function shall have an exception-
> >>    specification with the same set of type-ids.
> > 
> > Yes, but are those really the same functions?  It seems to me like one
> > is `abort' and the other is `std::abort'.  Without any sort of using
> > declaration, these are distinct ... no?
> 
> They are one and the same function. According to [dcl.link], p6:
> 
>      At most one function with a particular name can have C language
>      linkage.

Right.. that was exactly what I was inquiring about -- I thought these
*names* might be distinct.  That said, the passage you reference also
includes a specific exception for this case:

    Two declarations for an object with C language linkage with the
    same name (ignoring the namespace names that qualify it) ...

so, yeah, I'm now convinced that these functions are the same; sorry
for the noise.

-tom