On 28/01/2023 00.04, samuel ammonius wrote:
> I agree that C++ compilers are doing pretty good in being
> compatible with each other, but it's still good to have a fixed
> standard that developers can count on. With a standard name
> mangling scheme, C++ developers can ship precompiled
> libraries and be confident that they should work for developers
> using them. Developers in other languages can alias the full
> mangled name of a C++ function without worrying that it
> won't work on different compilers and platforms.

An ABI is not just about name mangling, but also about calling
conventions (which registers carry which arguments etc.), exception
mechanisms and a lot of other things.

Guaranteeing interoperability requires standardization of all of
these things, but some (such as calling conventions) are actually
platform-specific. However, I'd expect a standard in this area
to be platform-agnostic. Specifically, I can't see how a library
compiled with MSVC for Windows would ever link with code compiled
by gcc for Linux. The differences in name mangling are the least
of the problems here.

In short, I believe your efforts are a waste of time. The
existing approaches we have in that area work quite nicely.
If developers need more confidence in interoperability,
they should address their respective vendors first.

Jens