Re: [cxx-abi-dev] C++0x: mangling of char16_t and char32_t

[PremAnand M Rao <premanand.rao@xxxxxx>]

My reading of 3.9.1 para 5 says that they are distinct types, even 
though the underlying representation for wchar_t might be the same as 
the underlying representation for one of char16_t or char32_t.  So they 
must be mangled differently.
PremAnand.

Sean Perry wrote:
> What are the overload rules for char32_t and wchar_t?  If foo(char32_t) and
> foo(wchar_t) are unique then you can't use the same mangling.
> --
> Sean Perry
> Compiler Development
> IBM Canada Lab
> (905)-413-6031 (tie 313-6031), fax (905)-413-4839
>
>
>
>
>              Dennis Handly
>              <dhandly@xxxxxxxx
>              om>                                                        To
>                                        cxx-abi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>              03/25/2008 10:29          doug.gregor@xxxxxxxxx
>              PM                                                         cc
>
>                                                                    Subject
>                                        Re:  [cxx-abi-dev] C++0x: mangling
>                                        of char16_t and char32_t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > From: "Doug Gregor" <doug.gregor@xxxxxxxxx>
> > We don't have a mangling for the C++0x char16_t or char32_t types. It
> > has been suggested that we use 'k' for char16_t and 'q' for char32_t.
> > Does that seem reasonable?
> I was thinking for HP-UX, char32_t would be the same as wchar_t.
> If we need a mangling that treats it differently, we probably need to
> add some rationale words saying why we have w, c, a, h and now k/q.
>
> > From: David Vandevoorde <daveed@xxxxxxx>
> > Fine by me, although I'd prefer something a little more "mnemonical";
> > maybe W2 and W4.
> I would think we would want to use something like W# just so we preserve
> the one letter combinations.