================
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:
> 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.
Errr, it **was** trigerring this code.
I found it by locally replacing the below
if (isMicrosoftABI()) {
with
if (1) {
and it did report an error on Test16::D
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D785
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
