public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vopl at bk dot ru" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/100825] function signature constraints are not a part of mangled name Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 13:41:44 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-100825-4-B8Nyed9TSM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-100825-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100825 --- Comment #6 from vopl at bk dot ru --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > Yes, I realise that, but I think that is the same rule that means you can't > change the result of overload resolution for a given call, But I have a precedent: void foo(char) {} void useFirst() { foo(0); // "void foo(char)" used, no "void foo(int)" visible at now } void foo(int) {} // introduce second function void useSecond() { foo(0); // "void foo(int)" selected as more suitable } > which is why the > second definition gets emitted using the same symbol name as the first. [defns.signature.templ] states that trailing require-clause is a part of function signature, so these are two different functions: template <class T> void foo() {} template <class T> void foo() requires true {} Since the signature is the basis for name mangling - different names are expected for different functions.. > If the constrained overload is declared before the first call to foo<int>() > then there is no error. Aha, in such situation there is an only call, no second one, so, no second symbol and no conflicts. Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-01 13:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-05-29 11:54 [Bug c++/100825] New: " vopl at bk dot ru 2021-05-29 12:22 ` [Bug c++/100825] " vopl at bk dot ru 2021-05-31 11:08 ` vopl at bk dot ru 2021-06-01 9:47 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-01 10:44 ` vopl at bk dot ru 2021-06-01 11:30 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-01 13:41 ` vopl at bk dot ru [this message] 2021-06-02 16:26 ` rs2740 at gmail dot com 2021-06-09 16:56 ` nickolay.merkin at gmail dot com 2021-06-09 17:25 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-02 9:02 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-02 9:29 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-04 20:39 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-06 6:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-04-07 19:50 ` richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk 2023-10-06 2:02 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-100825-4-B8Nyed9TSM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).