RE: [boost] Interval Library review

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-09 20:55:53

Thomas,

So what input is provided to the MSVC name mangling if not the template
arguments? Not much of a mangling, since there is then not many items to
mangle into one name...

A bit odd, I find it hard to believe it is that simple.

/David

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Thomas Witt
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 12:32 PM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Interval Library review

Gennadiy,

On Sunday 08 September 2002 01:35, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> 9. Function templates like: template<class T> inline T pi_lower() does

> not work at least on MSVC. Use class specializations instead.
>
> I know that function templates like
> template<typename T>
> void foo() {
>     ...
> }
> produces wrong specialization with MSVC.

FWIW, the correct specialization gets instantiated and compiled. It is 
actually a name mangling problem. With vc6 name mangling the template 
arguments are not part of the mangled name. As a result the linker can
not 
differentiate between foo<int>() and foo<double>(). The usual workaround
is 
to do something like this.

template <class T>
void
foo(T* = 0) {}

--Thomas

-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Witt
Institut fuer Verkehrswesen, Eisenbahnbau und -betrieb, Universitaet
Hannover
voice: [phone] - 4273, fax: [phone]
http://www.ive.uni-hannover.de
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost