Re: Restrict mangling.

[dehnert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Dehnert)]

> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:02:29 -0400
> From: Coleen Phillimore <coleen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> There's a CV-qualifier mangling for 'restrict', but restrict doesn't mean
> anything unless it applies to the pointer itself (not what is pointed to).
> MS and g++ from what I can tell do not overload on the basis of restrict.
> Does it make sense to add to the mangling?
> 
>   <CV-qualifiers> ::= [r] [V] [K]       # restrict (C99), volatile, const

Well, it seems to me that it should be part of the mangling if and only
if it is also a factor in overloading.  Since C++ doesn't yet support
restrict, we don't have a definitive resolution of the latter.  So, unless
we want to specify it ourselves, and I think that would be very premature,
the answer is up in the air.

Perhaps we should just clarify in the document that it is specified for
use IF restrict enters into overloading decisions, and should be
omitted otherwise, without specifying the choice.  In effect, its use
becomes implementation-specific, as is the overloading effect of the
non-standard restrict qualifier.

Comments?

Jim

-	    Jim Dehnert		dehnert@xxxxxxx
				(650)933-4272