================
Comment at: lib/AST/VTableBuilder.cpp:2221
@@ -2220,3 @@
-
- // Itanium C++ ABI 2.5.2:
- // The order of the virtual function pointers in a virtual table is the
----------------
Reid Kleckner wrote:
> We're losing some of these spec references. It looks like this one should
> live in AddMethods().
I think I agree, I'll add this to AddMethods.
Hm, interesting - this wasn't there in the first place...
================
Comment at: lib/AST/VTableBuilder.cpp:2319
@@ -2318,3 @@
- // If a class has an implicitly-defined virtual destructor,
- // its entries come after the declared virtual function pointers.
-
----------------
Reid Kleckner wrote:
> I don't think Test16::D triggers this case because ~D is overriding ~C, so it
> goes into the vtable first.
>
> When can you have an implicitly defined virtual dtor without overriding the
> method of a base class? Is that possible? Good question for Richard or John.
Err, no.
There's no ~D in Test16:D.
struct C : ... { virtual ~C(); };
struct D : virtual C {
virtual void f();
};
So C has virtual ~C, thus D should have a virtual dtor.
AFAIU, as there's no explicit ~D, there should be an implicit one.
Does that sound right?
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D785
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
