Mangling: Allocating constructors

[Christophe de Dinechin]

Martin von Loewis wrote:
> 
> > 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...

Which is why I asked for the issue to be opened :-)

Christophe