------- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-14 09:15 ------- (In reply to comment #4)
> I think the first thing is to figure out what mangling we want for these > things > and if they should be mangled at all. The C++ ABI doesn't specify a > mangling for these operators, since it doesn't specify these operators at > all. > They're really an implementation detail. So, the first question is "Do these > operators need to appear in mangled names at all?" Is it a reasonable > restriction on users to say "thou shalt not use __is_empty in an expression > that gets mangled"? For example, can the user just use std::is_empty instead? Thanks for your feedback, Mark. Frankly, at the moment I don't have a strong opinion, but I'm wondering if existing practice can help us about those points: in fact such "builtins" are modeled after the existing Microsoft builtins: http://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/ms177194.aspx and probably knowing what Microsoft is doing could help... However, I don't think Visual c++ uses our multivendor ABI, thus I'm not sure investigating that point could suggest a specific mangling. What do you think? (well, in case we are going to need help from people owning a recent Visual C++...) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36797
