Agenda for tomorrow

[Jim Dehnert]

Following is an updated agenda.  The status pages are updated and on
the web at:

	http://reality.sgi.com/dehnert_engr/cxx/cxx-summary.html

The contact info page is now also there, in password-protected PDF only
for privacy.  The password is "not an orc".

As usual, most of the updates are in the ABI layout document, in color.
The significant changes from last week are:

 - Clarify ordering of vcall offsets.

 - Further elaboration of the construction vtable.

 - Specify COMDAT RTTI name (proposed resolution of A-28).

 - Derive pointer-to-member RTTI and pointer RTTI from common base.
   (Proposed resolution of A-29.)

 - Clarify substitution in mangled names by changing grammar approach.

 - Updates in Vague Linkage section.

Please take a careful look at the colored text, and raise any issues
you observe.  In particular, be prepared to list other things which
need to be mentioned in the new vague linkage section.

Take a look at the material associated with the following issues.

  1) C-2:  Priority for constructors.  The base ABI group is not
     particularly interested in this, because they are not getting
     pressure from their C++ people to worry about it.  So, if we want
     to standardize this, we need to apply pressure within our
     companies.

  2) A-29:  pointer-to-member RTTI.  Proposed resolution and writeup OK?

  3) A-28:  incomplete class RTTI and equality testing.  Proposed
     resolution and writeup OK?

  4) F-7:  Mangling statics.  Is writeup OK?

  5) F-11:  Hash for local strings.  Close with current (non-hash)
     writeup?

  5) C-4:  Construction vtables.  Ready to close?

  6) F-2:  Mangled name size.  Our hope has been that the substitution
     mechanism will make further efforts unnecessary.  How do we go
     about validating this?  Martin's first data are excellent.
     Matt gave him another set of names to try -- any luck?

  7) F-3:  Mangling instantiation/specialization.
     F-4:  Empty throw specifications.
     F-10: Mangling return types.

     Coleen made a proposal for F-3.  Jim updated the SGI interface
     section to handle all three.  Where should we go with this?

  8) F-6:  Demangler.  We should be getting an updated proposal from
     Matt.

  9) D-12:  Unwind table location.

For next week, be prepared to discuss:

  1) C-3:  Order of ctors/dtors w.r.t. DSOs.

  2) E-*:  Do we go anywhere with templates?

  3) G-4, C-14:  Specify form of local-scope single-initialization.

Issues that are active and awaiting proposals:

  a) Demangler interface?  (Matt)

Jim

-		Jim Dehnert  x3-4272