Razya Ladelsky wrote:
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/03/2005 04:55:38:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
As for why the new name doesn't work, it's not clear from the above.
I'd need to see the assembly and the error.
:)
Likewise. I assume these functions have only internal linkage? Or that
On Sunday 13 March 2005 16:53, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Sure you could.
> You can come up with your own way to mangle the addition you are making
> to the name based on how you versioned (IE what parameters you have
> removed/made constant, and their values), so that it would merge
> properly when pu
On Sunday 13 March 2005 16:31, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > bl operator<<.585
>
> ^^^
>
> You are using the demangled name instead of the mangled one, which is
> where your problem comes from.
Right. But the mangled name is not available at this point.
> Mark should be able t
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 16:42 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sunday 13 March 2005 16:31, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > bl operator<<.585
> >
> > ^^^
> >
> > You are using the demangled name instead of the mangled one, which is
> > where your problem comes from.
>
> Right. B
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 10:54 +0200, Razya Ladelsky wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/03/2005 04:55:38:
>
> > Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> > > As for why the new name doesn't work, it's not clear from the above.
> > > I'd need to see the assembly and the error.
> > > :)
> >
> >
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/03/2005 04:55:38:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > As for why the new name doesn't work, it's not clear from the above.
> > I'd need to see the assembly and the error.
> > :)
>
> Likewise. I assume these functions have only internal linkage? Or that
Daniel Berlin wrote:
As for why the new name doesn't work, it's not clear from the above.
I'd need to see the assembly and the error.
:)
Likewise. I assume these functions have only internal linkage? Or that
the original function is still provided with external linkage? (I'm
just checking that
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 18:02 +, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Razya Ladelsky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My case is this:
> > I version the operator<< function and name it operator<<.number (creating
> > an identifier which is not valid in the source code).
> > The assembly name created for the versioned
Razya Ladelsky wrote:
Hi,
My case is this:
I version the operator<< function and name it operator<<.number (creating
an identifier which is not valid in the source code).
The assembly name created for the versioned function is the same as the
tree identifier, which is not valid for the assembler.
Hi,
My case is this:
I version the operator<< function and name it operator<<.number (creating
an identifier which is not valid in the source code).
The assembly name created for the versioned function is the same as the
tree identifier, which is not valid for the assembler.
I tried creating an
10 matches
Mail list logo
