================
@@ -19109,7 +19119,17 @@ bool Sema::DefineUsedVTables() {
}
}
- if (IsExplicitInstantiationDeclaration)
+ if (IsExplicitInstantiationDeclaration &&
+ llvm::none_of(Class->decls(), [](Decl *decl) {
+ // If the class has a virtual member function declared with
+ // `__attribute__((exclude_from_explicit_instantiation))`, the
+ // explicit instantiation declaration shouldn't suppress emitting
+ // the vtable to ensure that the excluded member function is
+ // accessible through the vtable.
+ auto *Method = dyn_cast<CXXMethodDecl>(decl);
+ return Method && Method->isVirtual() &&
+ Method->hasAttr<ExcludeFromExplicitInstantiationAttr>();
+ }))
----------------
kikairoya wrote:
> > Are there any cases to emit vtables, other than excluded constructors?
>
> I'm not sure. I think they're emitted when used, which is typically by the
> constructor, but maybe there could be other cases.
I found the case. A virtual inheritance triggers to emit sub-tables.
https://godbolt.org/z/GqWKbYYjK
In that case, I feel odd if adding the attribute to `normal_fn` affects the
vtable generator routine, even if the result is not changed. The assumption
includes non-virtual functions looks too strong for me.
As this attribute is an extension, so I'd prefer to minimize the areas affected
by the attribute.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/168171
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
