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

[John McCall]

> On Sep 29, 2015, at 6:58 PM, Richard Smith <richardsmith at googlers.com> wrote:
> 
> On 29 September 2015 at 18:44, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat.com <mailto: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.

Assuming none of those definitions are modified by the TS, okay.

John.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/attachments/20150929/3d611a91/attachment-0001.html>