From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11665 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2009 06:55:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 11644 invoked by uid 48); 26 Aug 2009 06:55:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090826065522.11643.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/40527] #pragma pack([push,] n) should be coded in the signature In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "gerolf dot wendland at nsn dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg02081.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from gerolf dot wendland at nsn dot com 2009-08-26 06:55 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > That would require that the ABI specifies such a mangling. I'm not sure > anyone wants to go that route. This is exactly what I had in mind. Slightly extended names for structs/classes/unions would eventually lead to different mangled names of functions. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40527