[ Date Prev][ Date Next][ Thread Prev][ Thread Next][ Date Index][ Thread Index]
mangling question.
- To: cxx-abi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: mangling question.
- From: Alain Miniussi <alainm@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:31:05 -0800
I probably overlooked something, but I have a problem
understanding the mangling grammar:
<nested-name> ::= N <qualified-name> E
<qualified-name> ::= <CV-qualifier> <qualified-name>
::= <compound-name>
::= <substitution> // rule A
<compound-name> ::= <nesting-prefix> <unqualified-name>
::= <unqualified-name>
::= <substitution> // rule B
<nesting-prefix> ::= <nesting-prefix> <nesting-qualifier>
::= <nesting-qualifier>
::= <substitution>
<nesting-qualifier> ::= <namespace source-name>
::= <class-enum-name>
It seems to me that there are a few ambiguities (reduce/reduce)
related with <substitution>, for example if we consider rules A and B.
Note that I just started looking at the mangling, maybe I have missed
something obvious in the text. (I haven't found anithing related qith
this in the last mails).
Alain
|