LGTM
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/MicrosoftCXXABI.cpp:585
@@ -574,5 +584,3 @@
if (ML.VBase) {
- This = CGF.Builder.CreateBitCast(This, charPtrTy);
- llvm::Value *VBaseOffset = CGM.getCXXABI()
- .GetVirtualBaseClassOffset(CGF, This, MD->getParent(), ML.VBase);
- This = CGF.Builder.CreateInBoundsGEP(This, VBaseOffset);
+ bool AvoidVirtualOffset = false;
+ if (isa<CXXDestructorDecl>(MD) && GD.getDtorType() == Dtor_Base) {
----------------
I'm guessing this optimization just makes it easier to test and read and test
the LLVM IR output.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/VTableBuilder.cpp:2722-2723
@@ -2720,1 +2721,4 @@
+ // If there's at least one virtual destructor in a non-virtual base,
+ // the "this" parameter points at the most derived class.
+ if (!SeenVBase && isa<CXXDestructorDecl>(MD))
----------------
Wouldn't you return zero if it points at the most derived class, or was the old
code wrong?
================
Comment at: lib/AST/VTableBuilder.cpp:2714
@@ +2713,3 @@
+
+ // The traversal ends at the vbase for virtual destructors.
+ if (isa<CXXDestructorDecl>(MD))
----------------
So, before calling a dtor, we adjust to the first virtual base with a virtual
dtor. Is that right?
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/MicrosoftCXXABI.cpp:575
@@ +574,3 @@
+ // There's only Dtor_Deleting in vftable but it shares the this adjustment
+ // with the deleting one, so look it up instead.
+ LookupGD = GlobalDecl(DD, Dtor_Deleting);
----------------
I don't understand this comment. Do you mean that the base dtor should use the
same this adjustment as the deleting one?
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1939
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
