[cxx-abi-dev] Mangling of function reference

[Richard Smith]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:58 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:

> On May 10, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > it seems that the mangling used by clang and proposed here (although it
> hasn't made it to the document on the web) is the same for:
> > void (&)()  // reference to a function
> > void ()&
> > where the second one is what you get from a pointer to a member function
> that takes its *this argument by reference, when you remove the "pointer to
> member" part of the type. I gave a few more details there:
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_thread/thread/b3e459b9a4eb5d7e
> >
> > Am I missing something in the analysis? Is this on purpose because the
> two are unlikely to conflict?
>
> There are two language constraints preventing a conflict here:  first, you
> can't have a <ref-qualifier> on a function type that isn't immediately used
> to declare a member function or a pointer-to-member-function;  and second,
> you can't form a member pointer to a field of reference type.
>

That's not correct. You can have a ref-qualifier on a function type that's
used as a template argument; see 8.3.5/6. The following are all different
types:

T<void()>, T<void(&)()>, T<void()&>

The proposed ABI rule says we mangle the second two the same. Clang
currently mangles the first two the same. Clearly we need three different
manglings.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/attachments/20120511/0784847d/attachment.html>