name mangling

[Megalo]

why not make "name mangling" of C++ standard so should be possible
to call
the classes and the functions of C++ from other C++ compiler
[and other language too]
thanks

[Megalo]

>"James Kanze" <ja*********@gm ail.comha scritto nel messaggio

>news:6582fa2 d-0c67-4493-9207->7c**********@a 29g2000pra.goog legroups.com...
On Nov 3, 2:41 pm, "Megalo" <[e-mail] e:

>"Pawel Dziepak" <pdzie...@quarn os.orgha scritto nel
messaggionews: ge**********@re gistered.motzar ella.org...

extern "C" int function();

>better
extern "C++" int function();

>That's the default.

>because extern "C" has already the meaning for "C function"

>I think his point was that almost all other langauges have the
capability to call a C function, so if you make your C++
function look like a C function, they can call it.

so you think that a
C++ [class] function in a .dll file
could have a name usable of a C language?

i would say their name should be the argument size they have, its individual
size
the way of call that function (stdcall ccall etc)

for example
int f(int, int, int)
could have the name

stdcall$int@32$ f$int@32$int@32 $int@32

if i have a type X where sizeof(X)==64
int f(X, X, X)
stdcall$int@32$ f$X@64$X@64$X@6 4

it is the caller language that has to define type X, int32, in the
way it is like in the memory the C++ one

[Nick Keighley]

On 3 Nov, 11:59, Zeppe <ze...@remove.a ll.this.long.co mment.yahoo.it>
wrote:

Megalo wrote:

why not make "name mangling" of C++ standard so should be possible
to call
the classes and the functions of C++ from other C++ compiler
[and other language too]

because one of the reason in having different mangling conventions is
exactly to forbid inter-compilers linking.

why would you want to forbid ICL? yes I read the rest of your post.
It didn't help.

Mangling is not the only
element of heterogeneity between compilers, but other issues have to be
considered as structure paddings, virtual functions tables, calling
conventions, and other implementation aspects of the standard.

--
Nick Keighley

[Zeppe]

Nick Keighley wrote:

On 3 Nov, 11:59, Zeppe <ze...@remove.a ll.this.long.co mment.yahoo.it>
wrote:

>Megalo wrote:

>>why not make "name mangling" of C++ standard so should be possible
to call
the classes and the functions of C++ from other C++ compiler
[and other language too]

because one of the reason in having different mangling conventions is
exactly to forbid inter-compilers linking.

why would you want to forbid ICL? yes I read the rest of your post.
It didn't help.

Because boastful, explicit compilation failure is better than silent,
enigmatic, random run-time crash due to different conventions used by
different compilers that are not required to agree on some
implementation details whose standardisation would be limiting in
respect to the wideness of requirements satisfied by these compilers.

Best wishes,

Zeppe

[Megalo]

"Megalo" <[e-mail] scritto nel messaggio
news:49******** **************@ reader2.news.ti n.it...

"James Kanze" <ja*********@gm ail.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:6582fa 2d-0c67-4493-9207->7c**********@a 29g2000pra.goog legroups.com...
On Nov 3, 2:41 pm, "Megalo" <[e-mail] e:

>>"Pawel Dziepak" <pdzie...@quarn os.orgha scritto nel
messaggionews :ge**********@r egistered.motza rella.org...

>extern "C" int function();

>>better
extern "C++" int function();

>>That's the default.

>>because extern "C" has already the meaning for "C function"

>>I think his point was that almost all other langauges have the
capability to call a C function, so if you make your C++
function look like a C function, they can call it.

so you think that a
C++ [class] function in a .dll file
could have a name usable of a C language?

i would say their name should be the argument size they have, its
individual
size
the way of call that function (stdcall ccall etc)

for example
int f(int, int, int)
could have the name

stdcall$int@32$ f$int@32$int@32 $int@32

if i have a type X where sizeof(X)==64
int f(X, X, X)
stdcall$int@32$ f$X@64$X@64$X@6 4

if X=={8bits, 8bits, 32bits}

and i have the function
int f(X**, X*, X)

the name could be
stdcall$int@32$ f$X@PP@8@8@32$X @P@8@8@32$X@N@8 @8@32

it is the caller language that has to define type X, int32, in the
way it is like in the memory the C++ one

[James Kanze]

On Nov 4, 10:01 am, "Megalo" <[e-mail] e:

"James Kanze" <james.ka...@gm ail.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:6582fa2d-0c67-4493-9207->7c157227e__BEG IN_MASK_n#9g02m G7!__...__***** *************** **@a29g2000pra. googlegroups.co m...
On Nov 3, 2:41 pm, "Megalo" <[e-mail] e:

"Pawel Dziepak" <pdzie...@quarn os.orgha scritto nel
messaggionews:g e**********@reg istered.motzare lla.org...
extern "C" int function();
better
extern "C++" int function();

That's the default.

because extern "C" has already the meaning for "C function"

I think his point was that almost all other langauges have the
capability to call a C function, so if you make your C++
function look like a C function, they can call it.

so you think that a
C++ [class] function in a .dll file
could have a name usable of a C language?

Who cares about the name? Obviously, another language cannot
call a C++ member function unless it also knows how the C++
compiler implements classes, etc.

i would say their name should be the argument size they have,
its individual size the way of call that function (stdcall
ccall etc)

Why? Once you've said `extern "C"', you've told the compiler
all it needs to know.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]