Re: Patch to fix PR9861

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Tom Tromey writes:
 > >>>>> "TJ" == TJ Laurenzo <tlaurenzo@gmail.com> writes:
 > 
 > >> Also, constructors have no encoded return type.  I guess that's OK,
 > >> but I was rather surprised.
 > 
 > TJ> The decision to exclude return types on constructors was based on a
 > TJ> list of C++  rules for excluding return types for members of template
 > TJ> classes.
 > 
 > It is weird, but valid, to have a method with the class' name in java.
 > Would we get a symbol clash for a class like this?
 > 
 >     public class Weird {
 >       public Weird (int x) { /* constructor */ }
 >       public int Weird() { return 5; /* method */ }
 >     }

No.  A constructor that has no return type (not even void) doesn't
clash with any method name.

The constructor is

  Weird.Weird(int)  ->  _ZN5WeirdC1Ei

The method is

  Weird.Weird()int  ->  _ZN5Weird5WeirdEJiv

Andrew.