mangling of member template constructors

[Jason Merrill]

>>>>> Alain Miniussi <alainm at cup.hp.com> writes:

 > Alex Samuel wrote:

 >> Here's a mangling corner case that needs special treatment and should
 >> be added to the spec.  If you have a member template constructor,
 >> currently we mangle its return type (since return types of all
 >> template functions are mangled).  Since it's a constructor, it should
 >> have a special exemption, and not have a return type encoded.

 > What would be the benefit ? (I am just concerned by having to handle yet
 > another specific case if I don;t see any advantage to it).

constructors don't have return types in the language.

Jason