Re: Why don't we just FIX the damn vthunk problem?

[Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>]

>>>>> Martin v Loewis <martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:

 >> 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.

Not necessarily.  We could set up the [cd]tor vtables in the code
controlled by the in_chrg parameter, where we actually run the vbase
[cd]tors.  Then the vbase ctors themselves would wait to set their own
vtables until the end of the function.

We can make this backward compatible for -fno-new-abi by checking to see if
our vtable has already been set up, and setting it like we do now if not.

Jason