> On Sep 29, 2015, at 6:58 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 29 September 2015 at 18:44, John McCall <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Jason Merrill <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[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.
Assuming none of those definitions are modified by the TS, okay.
John.
_______________________________________________
cxx-abi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
