[cxx-abi-dev] Proposed ABI changes for new C++0x SFINAE rules
Jason Merrill
jason at redhat.com
Tue Jul 13 21:04:08 UTC 2010
On 07/09/2010 06:11 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote:
> If someone strongly prefers dropping the 0, or some other modification, I have no strong feelings about it.
That would be my preference. The language specifically doesn't specify
that nullptr has a value, so I'd rather not put it in the mangling.
> We need a way to e.g. distinguish "new T" and "new T()".
Ah, OK.
> ! <unresolved-name> ::= [gs] <base-unresolved-name> # x or (with "gs") ::x
> ! ::= sr <unresolved-type> <base-unresolved-name> # T::x / decltype(p)::x
> ! ::= srN <unresolved-type> <unresolved-qualifier-level>+ E <base-unresolved-name>
> ! # T::N::x /decltype(p)::N::x
> ! ::= [gs] sr <unresolved-qualifier-level>+ E <base-unresolved-name>
> ! # A::x, N::y, A<T>::z; "gs" means leading "::"
This doesn't seem to allow for, say, A::B<T>::x where A is a
non-template class or namespace.
Jason
More information about the cxx-abi-dev
mailing list