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

[Richard Smith]

On 29 September 2015 at 18:44, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:

> > 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.
>

It would violate either [basic.link]p9 or [basic.link]p10, depending on how
you resolve the ambiguity in the wording of p9.

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.
> _______________________________________________
> cxx-abi-dev mailing list
> cxx-abi-dev at codesourcery.com
> http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/attachments/20150929/8a81286d/attachment.html>