Re: PATCH: Add ifunc attribute

[Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>]

> Your proposal requires determining the mangling from the return type
> and the ifunc attribute argument.  

That's true.  You could alternatively allow/require a protoyped-name inside
the "" to resolve overloading.

> That's even more weird than HJs proposal.

I have to disagree thoroughly.

> No, I'm not serious.  

Your example is macroably identical to HJ's proposal.
I'm glad to see that you agree it's a laughably insane syntax. ;-)

> Keep it simple please, build on existing features.

What I have proposed for C is the most like existing features such as
alias.  HJ's proposal is the severe departure IMHO.  The natural extension
of the C syntax I proposed to C++ is indeed more bizarre, because, well,
it's C++, so what do you expect?


Thanks,
Roland