[Bug c++/13294] [3.4 Regression] namespace associations vs. specializations

[gdr at integrable-solutions dot net]

------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2004-04-08 22:46 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.4 Regression] namespace associations vs. specializations

"jason at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| Subject: Re:  [3.4 Regression] namespace associations vs.
|  specializations
| 
| On 6 Apr 2004 09:01:22 -0000, "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
| 
| > However, it seems to me that the problem you point out is still problematic in
| > that it means that the mangling of the specialization of "f" differs depending
| > on the strongly-used namespace.  I'd think that we want the mangling to be
| > independent of that so that debug/optimized versions of the library get the same
| > mangled name.
| 
| Yes, after thinking about it some more I think we need to handle this case
| the same as the other.
| 
| Unfortunately, the ABI mangling scheme doesn't really allow for this; a
| function template instantiation/specialization is mangled using the
| signature of the template and then the parameters; see
| get_mostly_instantiated_function_type.  To properly reflect the scope of
| the specialization under this scheme we would need to tweak the template
| signature, pretending that this is a specialization of some other imaginary
| template.  This is doable, but not attractive.
| 
| I don't think we want to change how specializations are mangled in general.
| 
| Another possibility would be to change our minds and go back to using the
| template context in mangling.
| 
| My feeling is that the ugly option above is the best one, but I'm very
| interested in other thoughts.


If by "ugly" you mean what you described in the second paragraph of
your message, then I agree it gives the expected semantics.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13294