Why don't we just FIX the damn vthunk problem?

[Martin v. Loewis]

> So we have one pointer to pass around, and conveniently there is a
> place in the object that we know will be unset until B::B is run:
> namely, the B vptr (which is shared by C and D).

In my example, there is only one vptr in the entire object: the one of
the virtual base (because the derived class does not define additional
virtuals). So we would have to pass the array of vtables in the vptr
of A. This wouldn't be compatible with the existing convention.

Did I miss something?

Martin