Is it possible to declare a function in D which gets the C++ calling convetion but not the C++ mangling?

Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut

On Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 18:25:10 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> Is it possible to declare a function in D which gets the C++ calling convetion but not the C++ mangling?
>
> Kind Regards
> Benjamin Thaut

You can use pragma(mangle, ...) to set whatever mangling you like.

On Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 21:33:50 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 18:25:10 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
>> Is it possible to declare a function in D which gets the C++ calling convetion but not the C++ mangling?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> Benjamin Thaut
>
> You can use pragma(mangle, ...) to set whatever mangling you like.

I would duplicate the declaration, once without extern(C++), once with, the use the .mangleof from the 1st to set the mangle of the 2nd with pragma(mangle

On Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 21:34:57 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>
> I would duplicate the declaration, once without extern(C++), once with, the use the .mangleof from the 1st to set the mangle of the 2nd with pragma(mangle

Yes that would work. But using pragma(mangle) feels so hacky...

On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 12:23:31 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 21:34:57 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>
>> I would duplicate the declaration, once without extern(C++), once with, the use the .mangleof from the 1st to set the mangle of the 2nd with pragma(mangle
>
> Yes that would work. But using pragma(mangle) feels so hacky...

I agree. Wrap it in a mixin / mixin template?

Why do you need this? Presumably it'll be hidden in the depths of some library / bindings where beauty is somewhat optional? Using the .mangleof from an extern(D) function should mean it's robust.

On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 13:00:39 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>
> I agree. Wrap it in a mixin / mixin template?
>
> Why do you need this? Presumably it'll be hidden in the depths of some library / bindings where beauty is somewhat optional? Using the .mangleof from an extern(D) function should mean it's robust.

Well the use case is creating a function which sole purpose it is to create a function pointer from it and pass it to C++. If it recieves C++ mangling however I have to pay attention that it does not conflict with any other C++ symbols. The same goes for extern(C). Sometimes you want to create functions with a C calling convetion so you can create a function pointer from it. With extern(C) its even a bigger problem because the C mangling conflicts a lot easier.

On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 13:40:12 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> On Friday, 20 February 2015 at 13:00:39 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>
>> I agree. Wrap it in a mixin / mixin template?
>>
>> Why do you need this? Presumably it'll be hidden in the depths of some library / bindings where beauty is somewhat optional? Using the .mangleof from an extern(D) function should mean it's robust.
>
> Well the use case is creating a function which sole purpose it is to create a function pointer from it and pass it to C++. If it recieves C++ mangling however I have to pay attention that it does not conflict with any other C++ symbols. The same goes for extern(C). Sometimes you want to create functions with a C calling convetion so you can create a function pointer from it. With extern(C) its even a bigger problem because the C mangling conflicts a lot easier.

For C++, you can just use the newly added namespace support:

    extern(C++, nobody.uses.this.name) myFunc() {}

Am 21.02.2015 um 11:30 schrieb "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm@gmx.net>":
>
> For C++, you can just use the newly added namespace support:
>
>      extern(C++, nobody.uses.this.name) myFunc() {}

Thats actually a good idea. Thanks.