Mangling local statics in constructors and destructors

[Jim Dehnert]

This is done -- take a look and see if it is OK.

Jim

> From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery.com>
> 
> In this kind of code:
> 
>   struct S {
>     S ();
>     ~S ();
>   };
> 
>   inline S::S () {
>     static int i;
> 
>     i = 7;
>   }
> 
>   inline S::~S () {
>     static int j;
> 
>     j = 9;
>   }
> 
> we need manglings for the local static variables.  These need to be
> consistent across the various constructor/destructor entry points; at
> present we do not have a mangling for a constructor independent of its
> entry point.
> 
> Alex and I think we should use the `C1', `D1' alternatives for this
> case; these are the "complete" object constructors and destructors,
> which seems as sensible a choice as any.
> 
> I don't think this is controversial; Jim, would you mind adding this
> to the document?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Mark Mitchell                   mark at codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com
> 
-	    Jim Dehnert		dehnertj at acm.org