2013/11/8 Timur Iskhodzhanov <[email protected]>: > 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...
My fishiness detector wasn't wrong :) Filed http://llvm.org/PR17845 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
