Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Shankar Unni Subject: Re: different c++ names mangling... Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:06:31 -0700 Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <3E9E717D.3070001@noos.fr> <20030417165037.GA12623@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.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/