This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why don't we just FIX the damn vthunk problem?
- To: jason at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Why don't we just FIX the damn vthunk problem?
- From: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at mira dot isdn dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:15:57 +0100
- CC: jce2 at po dot cwru dot edu, egcs at cygnus dot com, egcs-bugs at cygnus dot com, jason at cygnus dot com
- References: <36DA0D0C.275599F1.cygnus.egcs@po.cwru.edu> <u9pv6t91n4.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com>
> The static way, which EDG and IBM use, is to write out separate [cd]tor
> vtables along with the normal ones and pass them down into base [cd]tors.
> Obviously, this means you use more space in the executable.
[...]
> Any other ideas?
This is the solution which I'd favour. It would change the calling
convention for constructors of classes with vbases. It would have no
additional costs for other classes, and I doubt that the code to
generate the vtables on the fly is more compact than generating all
the results statically.
Regards,
Martin