Mangling: Allocating constructors

[Martin von Loewis]

> After a brief discussion last week, we opened a new issue at HP's
> request to consider whether to _also_ support allocating constructors,
> with a low priority (i.e. we'll worry about it later).  We observed
> that there's nothing to prevent an implementation from adding an
> allocating constructor, though the ABI doesn't require it, and the
> mangling for them was intended to allow consistent names if that
> happens (although an agreement on parameters would also be required).

If that is an extension, then code relying on it being generated is
not ABI compliant, of course...

Martin