On 01/05/2026 09:39, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
> In response to David, Jonathan and Thiago chronologically:
>
>
>
> Thiago:
> > What could possibly be the use-case for intercepting printf? How do
> you even
> > know what the mangling of "printf" is (hint: it's not `printf`
> everywhere)?
>
>
>
> Not sure why you're making this point, because the address of 'printf'
> gets resolved in C++, not in assembler, and so the compiler handles the
> mangling. We don't need to know the mangled name of printf.
>
That's not true, AFAIUI. Function addresses are resolved by the linker
- not the compiler.
I think he didn't mean "address", he meant that overload resolution in the compiler decides which symbol "std::printf" resolves to for a given expression. The actual *address* of that symbol is decided much later, but turning a call to printf into a reference to some symbol name (mangled or not) happens in the compiler.
And for standard functions where the compiler knows exactly what the
function does, or other functions when the compiler can see the source,
the compiler is not in any way obliged to generate direct calls to the
function. gcc will, for example, generate code for
printf("Hello, world!\n");
with a call to "puts".
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals