From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 000A83847825; Tue,  1 Jun 2021 13:41:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 000A83847825
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
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vopl at bk dot ru
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-100825-4-B8Nyed9TSM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100825-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100825-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 13:41:45 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100825

--- 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,=20

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.=