2013/11/7 Reid Kleckner <[email protected]>: > Comment at: include/clang/AST/RecordLayout.h:263 > @@ -258,3 +262,3 @@ > assert(CXXInfo && "Record layout does not have C++ specific info!"); > return CXXInfo->HasOwnVBPtr; > } > ---------------- > This can be hasVBPtr() && !BaseSharingVBPtr. > > ================ > Comment at: include/clang/AST/RecordLayout.h:102-105 > @@ -101,6 +101,6 @@ > > /// HasOwnVBPtr - Does this class provide a virtual function table > /// (vtable in Itanium, VBtbl in Microsoft) that is independent from > /// its base classes? > bool HasOwnVBPtr : 1; > > ---------------- > This can become dead. The comment is wrong anyway. > > > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2120
Interesting - I've tried the same apporach for hasOwnVFPtr vs hasVFPtr, prepared a patch, passed all the tests ... and realized this approach is not applicable to vfptrs. Seems like we don't have enough layout coverage? Looking... _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
