This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix darwin/25908, key functions vs non weak vtables


On 20/02/2006, at 3:36 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:


On Feb 20, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Geoffrey Keating wrote:


Is this ABI-preserving? If not, then it's not OK.


No it is not ABI-preserving and the "correct" patch is then
to revert your patch which I did not want to propose at
least not yet.

My patch was directed at cases like

struct s {
  int foo();
};
int s::foo() { return 1; }

where the key method wasn't inline. Surely it's possible to have the vtable be non-weak in this case but still be weak in the case where the key method is inline.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]