EEEEKS! The mangling changed!

[Loren James Rittle]

> Except that the mangled name is not what one would be entitled to
> expect.  If the Standard says something is in namespace std, it had
> better be, and its name mangling should reflect that, otherwise we're
> defeating a major point of the multi-vendor C++ ABI. [...]
> Am I missing anything?

I think you are missing the following point: No standard (including
the multi-vendor C++ ABI) dictates the precise contents of standard
library headers.  There is absolutely nothing which states how things
must get into those std namespaces (and how may affect how it is
mangled).  I can understand how a user would arrive at the conclusion,
but users are not entitled to expect your expectation IMHO (at least,
clearly not with the current implementations ;-).

To allow that user entitlement means violation of ODR or extra levels
of indirection, if one wants to allow multiple concrete
implementations of library features.  Does the multi-vendor C++ ABI
even discuss the issue of multiple concrete implementations, standard
ways to key between them, and separation of headers from implementations
(a topic not even raised by the C++ standard itself), etc?

Regards,
Loren