Mangling: Allocating constructors

[Jim Dehnert]

> From loewis at informatik.hu-berlin.de  Thu Mar 16 04:30:15 2000
> 
> > 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...

Of course.  Unless the same code using it also generated it (in which
case it could name it anything it wanted to...)

-	    Jim Dehnert		dehnert at sgi.com
				(650)933-4272