(j3.2006) Alternative binding label without C interoperability?

[Cohen Malcolm]

I'm not sure what the problem is with normal external procedures here.  If 
there is a problem with name mangling, surely there will also be problems 
with other parts of the ABI (argument passing conventions and the like). 
Compilers that have compatibility options (so that things can interoperate 
with other compilers) usually have those options affect more than just the 
"name mangling", but how the stack and registers are used, what method is 
used for passing character argument lengths, dope vector layouts, and so on.

Furthermore, without linking this binding name to the companion processor, 
there is no reason for any compiler to produce something that is even the 
same as that of another compiler.  The standard is able to specify this by 
explicitly linking it to the companion processor's entity with that name. 
Without any such entity, there is no way the standard can specify this.

Cheers,
-- 
........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.