On 19 February 2015 at 23:44, Dennis Handly <[email protected]> wrote:
> >From: David Majnemer <[email protected]> > >It seems that the ABI has no means to mangle the contents of string > constants. > > Why is that needed? > See the linked message: http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/2012-January/000032.html This is about string literals in signatures, where we need to mangle the contents because the contents can be observed through evaluation of a value-dependent constant expression. The current scheme is to just number the constants in order. > And that handles both strings and wide strings. > And by the ODR rule the inlines must be the same. > > >the proposal doesn't specify how to mangle UTF-16/UTF-32 string literals. > >Such a mangling would have to specify the endianness used to encode the > code > >points. > > Again why? We just need mangling to make sure they match addresses. > Do we really to check code enforcement? > We don't do for narrow vs wide. > > >I am trying to figure out how we should mangle the string constant in: > >struct X { > > static constexpr const char *p = "foo"; > >}; > > I thought this was defined? Apparently not.
_______________________________________________ cxx-abi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
