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: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?

From: =?big5?b?RG91ZyBLd2FuICjD9q62vHcp?= <dougkwan at google dot com>
To: Rafael Espindola <espindola at google dot com>
Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:38:44 -0800
Subject: Re: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
References: <498552560811140139n64a950a4gc22864fa102975ea@mail.gmail.com> <38a0d8450811140159m4849c086sa671f91c0bc87a2a@mail.gmail.com> <b798aad50811140503p1af614c2o34936188d5411827@mail.gmail.com> <38a0d8450811140504h585e2d8ayfe1421e8c605426c@mail.gmail.com>

Just removing the decls without body is enough for this bug but I am
not sure if that is the right thing to do.  We will end up with binfos
with incomplete vtables.  If we late do need that binfo (like in the
folder as Diego mentions), we will run into troubles.

-Doug

2008/11/14 Rafael Espindola <espindola@google.com>:

> Just removing the decls without body from it should be enough for this bug, no?
>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
  - From: Rafael Espindola

References:
- [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
  - From: =?big5?b?RG91ZyBLd2FuICjD9q62vHcp?=
- Re: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
  - From: Rafael Espindola
- Re: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: [LTO]How should be resolve a DECL with no function body?
  - From: Rafael Espindola

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