[cxx-abi-dev] Name mangling for explicit overriders

[Martin von Loewis]

> I think we have the following choices:
> 
> 1. Do nothing.
> 
> 2. Treat it as a probable extension (ala restrict) to the standard, and
> include it in the ABI specification.
> 
> 3. Treat it as a vendor extension, and try to come up with a sensible
> framework for such things.
> 
> Do you have a sense of how probable it is that this extension will
> actually find its way into the standard?  That estimation seems it like
> it might be persuasive in deciding between (2) and (3).

I think there is an option 4. which we should follow

4. Document it as a vendor extension

My understanding is that EDG already uses it in a product, and there is no
way to stop them unless technical problems are brought forward. I could not
find any technical problems with that proposed mangling.

We don't need a framework for this in the mangling itself, perhaps only in
the documentation. Adding a section "Extensions", with "Cross-vendor extensions"
and "Vendor-specific" extensions might be useful, indicating to readers that
cross-vendor extensions are discouraged unless there is a clearly-documented
indication that the extension is truly cross-vendor. "Vendor-specific"
extensions would only require registration of a vendor identifier, and would
be left for further study (when the problem actually occurs).

Regards,
Martin