OK to commit? On 8/14/10 10:53 PM, Charles Davis wrote: > On 8/14/10 10:39 PM, Charles Davis wrote: >> On 8/14/10 8:03 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> On 08/14/2010 07:34 PM, Charles Davis wrote: >>>> On 8/14/10 1:55 PM, John McCall wrote: >>>>> This seems fine, though yeah, I guess I'd prefer that you checked it in >>>>> with >>>>> the MS layout code. >>>> Here's a version that includes some MS-specific code. It handles the >>>> case where a class has both a virtual method and a virtual base (in such >>>> cases, VC would give it two virtual pointers). >>> >>> Does every member function need to be virtual? A lot of those seem like >>> overriding them is possibly a bad idea, >> Most C++ ABIs might be compatible with C, but how do we know that >> someone won't come up with a novel ABI that has completely different >> conceptions about everything--including class layout? >>> and in any case it's not very >>> useful to make them virtual if we aren't overriding them. >> I concede to you on that. As much as I don't want to end up breaking >> backwards compatibility later on, it might be worth removing most of the >> 'virtual's from the patch to minimize the (tiny) performance impact of >> virtual calls. The Clang C++ API is supposed to be "unstable", after all... > And here's a patch where only the methods that are overridden in > MSRecordLayoutBuilder are 'virtual'. > > Chip >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
