Re: Mangling: Special names

[Christophe de Dinechin <ddd@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Dehnert wrote:
> 
> Good question.  I interpreted C1/C2/C3/C4 as being the default
> constructors, with the following derivation for Foo::Foo(), which is
> the constructor for type Foo:
> 
>     <encoding>  -> _Z <name> <type>
>                 -> _Z <special-name> <class-enum-type>
>                 -> _Z C1 <source-name>
>                 -> _Z C1 3Foo
> 
This made me think: does it buy us something to have a special encoding for copy
constructor and assignment operator when, for class C, their parameter is const
C & ? In general, for members of class C, could we reserve a one letter encoding
for const C &?


Christophe