lgtm
================
Comment at: lib/AST/VTableBuilder.cpp:2795
@@ -2794,3 @@
-/// methods.
-bool VFTableBuilder::NeedsReturnAdjustingThunk(const CXXMethodDecl *MD) {
- OverriddenMethodsSetTy OverriddenMethods;
----------------
So this fix (I think I wrote it?) was incorrect. We need to look back at the
chain of method overrides in the current vftable, rather than all possible
overrides.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/VTableBuilder.cpp:2885-2886
@@ +2884,4 @@
+ // convertible to the OverriddenMD's one.
+ // Interestingly, a new vftable slot is also created if OverriddenMD
+ // itself required an extra slot due to return adjustment.
+ ReturnAdjustingThunk = !ComputeReturnAdjustmentBaseOffset(
----------------
I would say something like:
// Once a chain of method overrides adds a return adjusting vftable slot, all
subsequent overrides will also use an extra method slot.
Would you agree with that statement?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D4822
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
