================
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:
> > 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
If any base class of a class X has a virtual destructor, then X also has a
virtual destructor, no matter whether it's declared explicitly or implicitly.
If no base class of X has a virtual destructor, and X does not declare a
destructor, then its implicit destructor is not virtual. Does that answer the
question?
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D785
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
