Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Injected-Via-Gmane:	http://gmane.org/
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Shankar Unni <shankar AT cotagesoft DOT com>
Subject:	Re: different c++ names mangling...
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:06:31 -0700
Lines:	17
Message-ID:	<b7mqdq$f8k$1@main.gmane.org>
References:	<3E9E717D DOT 3070001 AT noos DOT fr> <20030417165037 DOT GA12623 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT org
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
In-Reply-To:	<20030417165037.GA12623@redhat.com>

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> MSVC and gcc will probably always use different name mangling techniques.

They have to, because they use different vtable layouts, so the binaries 
will never be link-compatible. And worse, IIRC, Microsoft has some 
patents on the way they lay out their vtables which could mean that if 
GCC wanted to generate the same layout, they would have to license that 
patent (not likely!).

(Of course, notice also that GCC changed its name mangling between the 
2.9x and the 3.x series, for precisely the same reason: ABI changes; the 
name mangling mechanism has been convenient as a way to prevent 
accidental linking of incompatible binaries..)
--
Shankar.



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -