On 29 September 2015 at 18:44, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Jason Merrill <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev >
_______________________________________________ cxx-abi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
