mangling of member template constructors

[Alain Miniussi]

Jason Merrill wrote:
> 
> >>>>> Alain Miniussi <alainm at cup.hp.com> writes:
> 
>  > Alex Samuel wrote:
> 
>  >> Here's a mangling corner case that needs special treatment and should
>  >> be added to the spec.  If you have a member template constructor,
>  >> currently we mangle its return type (since return types of all
>  >> template functions are mangled).  Since it's a constructor, it should
>  >> have a special exemption, and not have a return type encoded.
> 
>  > What would be the benefit ? (I am just concerned by having to handle yet
>  > another specific case if I don;t see any advantage to it).
> 
> constructors don't have return types in the language.

They don't have mangled names either :-)

Alain