Re: [cxx-abi-dev] Mangling sizeof

[Jason Merrill <jason@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jason Merrill wrote:
> If we're dropping type stubs, that reintroduces the issue of what to do 
> with function parameters.  I think it may still make sense to use type 
> stubs for them; the name of the parameter is not part of the signature, 
> and I don't think it's possible, given two parameters of the same type, 
> for it to make a difference which one you use in a decltype/sizeof 
> expression.  Alternatively, we could just introduce a mangling for 
> "function parameter N".  Which might be simpler.

On the other hand, I am sorry to give up the property that

  decltype (*(T*)0 + *(T*)0) f (T t);
and
  auto f(T t) -> decltype (t + t)

have the same signature.  Maybe just use type stubs for function 
parameters and *(T*)0?

Jason