Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!netcom!aed From: aed@netcom.COM (Andrew Davidson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: c++ name mangler sought Message-ID: <1991Apr3.170401.4903@netcom.COM> Date: 3 Apr 91 17:04:01 GMT References: <71574@microsoft.UUCP> <41560@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Distribution: usa Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest} Lines: 34 > >Article 10088 (9 more) in comp.lang.c++: >From: jbuck@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Buck) >Subject: Re: c++ name mangler sought >Date: 3 Apr 91 00:52:09 GMT > Who says you need to >mangle at all? What we do now reminds me of the kludgery the Eunice >(Unix on top of VMS) system goes through to represent arbitrary Unix >filenames on top of a filesystem with more restricted filenames: >right, >it does name mangling. cfront needs to do name mangling because it >produces C. But true C++ compilers don't need to do name mangling at >all; they only need a minor modification to the linker. > I think in general most of use to not realy care if function names are mangled or not. we are just trying to get dyanmic linking and loading to work. In general we need some way to map the functions names we write in C++ or any other lang, with the correct symbol in the object file we are loading. Andy -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- "bede-bede-bede Thats all Folks" Porky Pig Andy Davidson Woodside CA. aed@netcom.COM -----------------------------------------------------------------