Re: [C++ PATCH]: Remove rtti cruft

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>]

Jason Merrill wrote:
> 
> Why do you inline get_base_offset into synthesize_tinfo_var?  You aren't
> removing any actual code, and it seems clearer to me to leave it as a
> subroutine.  In general, I'm a fan of functional abstraction.
A few days ago, get_base_offset was much bigger, supporting both ABIs.
After eviscerating the old abi, it got tiny. Whilst I agree with you
about functional abstraction, I didn't think this case warranted it.
The only reason I broke get_base_offset out expand_class_desc originally, was because what it was doing was rather more confusing during the
transition (and it was needed from two places).

> In create_real_tinfo_var, why don't we use the mangled name for DECL_NAME,
> too?
Err, don't know, might be historical accident. I'll have a look.

nathan

-- 
Dr Nathan Sidwell   ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::   CodeSourcery LLC
         'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org