Re: name mangling

Discussion in 'C++' started by Zeppe, Nov 3, 2008.

  1. Zeppe

    Zeppe Guest

    Megalo wrote:
    > why not make "name mangling" of C++ standard so should be possible
    > to call
    > the classes and the functions of C++ from other C++ compiler
    > [and other language too]


    because one of the reason in having different mangling conventions is
    exactly to forbid inter-compilers linking. Mangling is not the only
    element of heterogeneity between compilers, but other issues have to be
    considered as structure paddings, virtual functions tables, calling
    conventions, and other implementation aspects of the standard.

    Best wishes,

    Zeppe
     
    Zeppe, Nov 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 3 Nov, 11:59, Zeppe <>
    wrote:
    > Megalo wrote:
    > > why not make "name mangling" of C++ standard so should be possible
    > > to call
    > > the classes and the functions of C++ from other C++ compiler
    > > [and other language too]

    >
    > because one of the reason in having different mangling conventions is
    > exactly to forbid inter-compilers linking.


    why would you want to forbid ICL? yes I read the rest of your post.
    It didn't help.

    > Mangling is not the only
    > element of heterogeneity between compilers, but other issues have to be
    > considered as structure paddings, virtual functions tables, calling
    > conventions, and other implementation aspects of the standard.



    --
    Nick Keighley
     
    Nick Keighley, Nov 4, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Zeppe

    Zeppe Guest

    Nick Keighley wrote:
    > On 3 Nov, 11:59, Zeppe <>
    > wrote:
    >> Megalo wrote:
    >>> why not make "name mangling" of C++ standard so should be possible
    >>> to call
    >>> the classes and the functions of C++ from other C++ compiler
    >>> [and other language too]

    >> because one of the reason in having different mangling conventions is
    >> exactly to forbid inter-compilers linking.

    >
    > why would you want to forbid ICL? yes I read the rest of your post.
    > It didn't help.


    Because boastful, explicit compilation failure is better than silent,
    enigmatic, random run-time crash due to different conventions used by
    different compilers that are not required to agree on some
    implementation details whose standardisation would be limiting in
    respect to the wideness of requirements satisfied by these compilers.

    Best wishes,

    Zeppe
     
    Zeppe, Nov 4, 2008
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. abhijeet.s
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    4,515
    Jean-Francois Briere
    Feb 3, 2006
  2. sunny

    Name Mangling in DDK

    sunny, Jul 9, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    471
    Robert Wessel
    Jul 10, 2004
  3. Tim Slattery

    Name-mangling standard?

    Tim Slattery, Sep 2, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,874
    Thomas Matthews
    Sep 2, 2004
  4. Randy Yates
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    529
    Randy Yates
    Jan 4, 2005
  5. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    423
    E. Robert Tisdale
    Sep 8, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page