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] Vtable pointer verification, gcc changes (patch 2 of 2)

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Caroline Tice <cmtice at google dot com>
Cc: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:34:27 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Vtable pointer verification, gcc changes (patch 2 of 2)
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.patches
References: <CABtf2+SdU_aWMj-v6J=WM8onenUX0UZY72bdKj2a4JEtUXe-pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAkRFZJa-PMkXOsjHQNbdD=Y1Nv=OiX_YzVMTFCQBhOYyPhtkA@mail.gmail.com> <CABtf2+Td7qbF+43dH0Ox=_8VUvLoQSQXSNAgayXHD3=kv2EhwQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/16/2012 01:21 PM, Caroline Tice wrote:

-start_objects (int method_type, int initp)
+start_objects (int method_type, int initp, const char *extra_name)

I don't think we want to mess with start_objects and such here. Can't you just use

      DECL_STATIC_CONSTRUCTOR (decl) = 1;
      SET_DECL_INIT_PRIORITY (decl, priority);

on your initialization function instead?

Jason

References:
- [PATCH] Vtable pointer verification, gcc changes (patch 2 of 2)
  - From: Caroline Tice
- Re: [PATCH] Vtable pointer verification, gcc changes (patch 2 of 2)
  - From: Xinliang David Li
- Re: [PATCH] Vtable pointer verification, gcc changes (patch 2 of 2)
  - From: Caroline Tice

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