Mistake in C++ ABI substitution rules?

[Mark Mitchell]

> If all the folks who implemented the ABI interpreted it that way, we
> have no problem with s/may/must/.  But if some did not, then we don't
> have a portable ABI, someone will have to make changes.

I strongly believe that all vendors have implemented the substitution
semantics.  I know that Intel, GCC, and HP have all implemented these
rules.

Like many things about the ABI, the name-mangling rules are not nearly
as clear as I would like.  Whenever I say something like this, Jason
reminds me that I could fix the spec, and then I find myself
insufficiently motivated.

Unfortunately, the little unclarities mean that corner cases do come
up where things are not compatible.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com