================
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.
-
----------------
Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote:
> 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?
Yes, it's implicit, but it wasn't triggering this code, because it should
always hit the codepath for overrides and continue the loop before setting
ImplicitVirtualDtor. I'm looking for a counterexample to show that this code
isn't dead.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D785
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
