More mangling issues

[Jim Dehnert]

> From loewis at informatik.hu-berlin.de  Thu Mar 16 04:34:43 2000
> 
> > Good point.  So the original mangling _Z3fooPPM2ABFiE, is invalid.
> 
> It depends. I'd say the grammar was wrong, and should read
> 
> <encoding> ::= <name> [ <function parameters> ]
> <function parameters> ::= <type>*
> 
> The question is whether '? foo(int)' should be '_Z3fooi' or
> '_Z3fooFiE'. It would work either way. The original draft had the
> first version, the new grammar the second.
> 
> > Note that since yesterday's message I've converted the examples to a
> > table to make it easier to read, and in the process I fixed most of
> > them.  Most, if not all, of the fixes involved inserting the F...E
> > delimiters around function types.
> 
> Was there a deliberate decision to change the mangling? I think
> neither is 'better' than the other, so I don't care too much...

We decided today to go back to the original form.

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