On May 19, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Peter Collingbourne <[email protected]> wrote: > This function only makes sense there. Eventually it should no longer > be part of the CGCXXABI interface, as it is an Itanium-specific detail.
Hmm. I'd be happier if we just went ahead and abstracted what needed to be abstracted at the use sites here, but if you feel that this is a useful intermediate step, go ahead. > > @@ -1906,7 +1906,7 @@ > llvm::Value *VTableAddressPoint; > > // Check if we need to use a vtable from the VTT. > - if (CodeGenVTables::needsVTTParameter(CurGD) && > + if (CGM.getCXXABI().NeedsVTTParameter(CurGD) && While you're in here, please cache this instead of using it twice. This does change the code we'll emit for some ctor/dtor calls with classes with virtual bases; does it bring us to a point where we can add test cases for those, or do we still crash for unrelated reasons? John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
