Prazek added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGClass.cpp:1842
@@ +1841,3 @@
+ CGM.getCXXABI().getVTableAddressPoint(vptr.Base, vptr.VTableClass);
+ if (!VTableGlobal) return;
+
----------------
majnemer wrote:
> The return should be on it's own line, please clang-format this.
> Also, under which conditions is this case possible?
Unfortunatelly clang-format puts short instructions in the same line
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGClass.cpp:2098
@@ -2063,3 +2097,3 @@
// Initialize the vtable pointer for this base.
- InitializeVTablePointer(Base, NearestVBase, OffsetFromNearestVBase,
- VTableClass);
+ VPtr vptr{Base, NearestVBase, OffsetFromNearestVBase, VTableClass};
+ vptrs.push_back(vptr);
----------------
majnemer wrote:
> This kind of initialization is not very common in LLVM.
is It worth adding constructor just to change { with ( ?
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/MicrosoftCXXABI.cpp:223-228
@@ +222,8 @@
+ // with the 'novtable' attribute.
+ bool canInitilizeVPtr(const CXXRecordDecl *VTableClass,
+ const CXXRecordDecl *Base,
+ const CXXRecordDecl *NearestVBase) override {
+ return !VTableClass->hasAttr<MSNoVTableAttr>() ||
+ (Base != VTableClass && Base != NearestVBase);
+ }
+
----------------
majnemer wrote:
> In the MS ABI, derived classes never share vtables with bases. Why do you
> need to do anything other than check that the most derived class doesn't have
> the `__declspec(novtable)` ?
I don't know, I just took previous code assuming it is correct.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11859
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
