[cxx-abi-dev] Mangling "transaction-safe function"

[John McCall]

> On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat.com> wrote:
> The Transactional Memory TS introduces "transaction-safe function" types, which are distinct from non-transaction-safe function types, though the former converts to the latter.  So we need to represent this in mangling.
> 
> I think no change to mangling of actual functions is necessary, since functions that differ only in their tx-qualifier cannot be overloaded.

Is it an ODR violation to define functions in different translation units that differ only in their tx-qualifier?  There are definitely cases with templates where there’s no legal way to overload them but they’re nonetheless not the same function for the purposes of the ODR.

Also, even if we’re not emitting two entrypoints now, is that a plausible implementation direction in the future, or is adding the ability to overload a plausible language direction?

John.