Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!stc!root44!hrc63!pj
From: pj@hrc63.co.uk (Mr P Johnson "Baddow")
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C --> C++
Message-ID: <578@hrc63.co.uk>
Date: 2 May 89 15:24:21 GMT
References: <6590096@hplsla.HP.COM> <11437@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Organization: GEC Hirst Research Centre, Wembley, England.
Lines: 18

In article <11437@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) writes:
> In article <6590096@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes:
> >Can you
> >do a extern "C" like construct that goes the other
> >way? 
> 
> You should have added "in a portable way"...
> Since C++ doesn't have a standard naming convention for generating
> unique names for the loader, each compiler does its own name mangling.

Yes, but I should be able to tell the compiler "dont mangle this function
name".  A #pragma or something.  It would still be callable from C++ (via
the `extern "C"' mechanism).

Speaking as someone who has tried to do this, I think it is a major gap in
the langauge.

Paul.