This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [cxx-abi-dev] Re: Mistake in C++ ABI substitution rules?
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- To: loewis at informatik dot hu-berlin dot de (Martin von Loewis)
- Cc: shebs at apple dot com (Stan Shebs), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org (gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org)
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:44:44 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [cxx-abi-dev] Re: Mistake in C++ ABI substitution rules?
Stan Shebs <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Incidentally, the kernel guy now reports that he has a remangler
> > capable of converting all the 2.95 mangled symbols in Darwin kernel
> > and drivers to their 3.1 counterparts. Next is to try booting a
> > 3.1-compiled kernel and see what happens when the 3.1 base classes
> > actually load the 2.95-compiled derived classes that make up the
> > drivers...
Martin von Loewis writes:
> Not that this is relevant for the ABI discussions: but won't there be
> issues with changes to object layout as well?
Yes, in particular 2.95 always reserved at least 1 byte for all
sub-objects (members or base classes of a class or struct), but 3.x
will not allocate any space in most cases for classes with no data
members and no vtable.