EEEEKS! The mangling changed!

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Dec  4, 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:

> | Except that the mangled name is not what one would be entitled to
> | expect.  

> Oh, come on.  If you want to go the language lawyer route by citing the
> C++ standard (as you did in your previous message), then I'm sure you
> know that you're not founded to expect anything as far far as name
> mangling goes.

I thought the point of the multi-vendor C++ ABI was to enable linking
of code compiled by different C++ compilers.  But if they use
incompatible symbol names, this goal hasn't been accomplished.  By
intentionally using incompatible name mangling, we're actively working
to break this expected feature.  Is this really a goal we should
pursue?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer