This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/8612: Vtable layout: missing vcall offset
- From: bangerth at dealii dot org
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org, grigory at stl dot sarov dot ru, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org, nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 27 Nov 2002 03:43:11 -0000
- Subject: Re: c++/8612: Vtable layout: missing vcall offset
- Reply-to: bangerth at dealii dot org, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org, grigory at stl dot sarov dot ru, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org, nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
Synopsis: Vtable layout: missing vcall offset
Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->mmitchel
Responsible-Changed-By: bangerth
Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Nov 26 19:43:11 2002
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Mark, you did all the compatibility work recently, can I
enter you here as "responsible"?
State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Tue Nov 26 19:43:11 2002
State-Changed-Why:
I can reproduce your findings, although I must admit
that I have no clue about the meanings of the numbers,
and thus don't know anything about their validity.
However: when I use present 3.3 CVS, I get the following
dump:
Vtable for C1
C1::vtable for C1: 10 entries
0 8
4 0
8 &typeinfo for C1
12 0 << 3.2 had an "8" here
16 0fffffff8
20 &typeinfo for C1
24 C4::f6()
28 0fffffff0
32 &typeinfo for C1
36 C4::f6()
As I said, I have no clue what these numbers mean, so
the following question might seem naive: shouldn't the
vtable data be the same with 3.2 and 3.3? Giving
-fabi-version={0,1,2} does not change this, by the way.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8612