Re: Hi, I did some code spelunking to find the -fall-virtual problem.

[Carlo Wood <carlo at runaway dot xs4all dot nl>]

| I think I would rather remove -fall-virtual then fix it (or have it
| fixed).  Jason, how do you feel?
| 
| If it is to be fixed, then yes, it sounds like a reasonable way to fix
| it, though the style differs from the original style quite a bit.

For what it is worth, I feel that removing -fall-virtual would be
better too.  Its actually a violation of the C++ standard and changes
the functionality of the code in a way that it doesn't make sense:
Code that needs -fall-virtual is meaningless without it and visa versa:
It's actually another language (V++?).

"C++" code that needs -fall-virtual is very broken, no matter how you look
at it; the only reason I can think of writing code like that is lazyness.

Supporting this in egcs is confusing, it doesn't make the code of
egcs itself more flexible or better to maintain.

 Carlo Wood  <carlo@runaway.xs4all.nl>

PS I am sorry if this looks like a flame.  It is not.
   I always respect the opinion of everyone.  I just got
   a strong opinion of myself and often can't find the
   diplomatic words that would be needed to express it :).