On 01/06/2012 04:44 PM, Mike Herrick wrote: > How about this case (explicit "B::" added): > > I'm assuming that the first "f" should now be _ZN1B1fIcEEvR1AIT_XsrS_4cmp1EE Hmm, that makes sense (and matches clang's output). But we don't currently preserve that distinction, so it also makes more work for me... Jason