On Dec 16, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:33 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Consider:
>
> Remind me why it’s impossible to go back to the committee and repeatedly
> weaken any remaining guarantees about string literal addresses until none of
> this is important?
>
> If you really want to go that way, how about striking this mangling from the
> Itanium ABI entirely and replacing it with a note saying that we believe this
> is a standard defect and aren't going to support it? Is a weak and defective
> spec here (only implemented by a single frontend, as far as I can tell) any
> better than no spec at all?
I’d be happy to strike it from the spec in that case, or at least mark it as a
footnote for implementations that choose to care, if there are any.
If we left it as a footnote, I think your proposals seem sound, although I’d
want the example to clarify that it’s also the same literal if multiply
expanded by the pack expansion, which I’m not sure is guaranteed by the
language.
John.
_______________________________________________
cxx-abi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
