On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <[email protected]>wrote:
> Author: timurrrr > > Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGVTables.h > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGVTables.h?rev=192288&r1=192287&r2=192288&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGVTables.h (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGVTables.h Wed Oct 9 06:33:51 2013 > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ class CodeGenVTables { > > // FIXME: Consider moving VTContext and VFTContext into respective > CXXABI > // classes? > - VTableContext VTContext; > + ItaniumVTableContext VTContext; > OwningPtr<MicrosoftVFTableContext> VFTContext; > > /// VTableAddressPointsMapTy - Address points for a single vtable. > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ public: > > CodeGenVTables(CodeGenModule &CGM); > > - VTableContext &getVTableContext() { return VTContext; } > + ItaniumVTableContext &getVTableContext() { return VTContext; } > > MicrosoftVFTableContext &getVFTableContext() { return > *VFTContext.get(); } > Long term, we don't need both VFTableContext and ItaniumVTableContext, right? Are we going to move to a common base like CGCXXABI with getters that downcast and assert that we're in the right ABI? One thing I wanted to do was get rid of the downcasting entirely by doing something like giving the CGCXXABIs factory methods for the ABI-specific manglers, record builders, and vtable builders. Then MicrosoftCXXABI can keep a reference to the MicrosoftMangleContext without having to get it back from CGM with a downcast.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
