Re: [cxx-abi-dev] Mangling of C++0x literal operator functions

[David Vandevoorde <daveed@xxxxxxx>]

On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:54 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've been working on putting C++0x literal operator functions into  
> clang, and I ran into the fact that I wasn't sure how to mangle  
> them. I opted for "ul" (for "user literal") followed by an  
> identifier as an <operator-name>, but I don't think this is  
> necessarily the best solution, because it might cause confusion with  
> vendor-specific types (though it's guaranteed not to collide  
> directly). Perhaps "lo" (for "literal operator") would be better.  
> It's not a big deal; the user literal support (and clang itself) are  
> far from mature enough that a minor ABI change would be an issue,  
> but it would nonetheless be best to resolve this as soon as possible.


"lo" is fine by me.  "li" would be fine too.

	Daveed