[cfe-dev] Adding support for multiple non-virtual inheritance for -cxx-abi microsoft

John McCall rjmccall at apple.com
Mon Apr 8 11:28:23 PDT 2013

On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote:
> 2013/4/8 John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com>:
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote:
>>> I wanted to work on the multiple non-virtual inheritance support for
>>> the Microsoft ABI.
>>> I already have a local patch that generates code that works, but I
>>> think it requires quite some polishing.
>>> There are a few general questions I'd like to ask first as the Clang
>>> architecture assumes some high-level things that are not true in the
>>> Microsoft ABI.
>>> Let's assume we have
>>> struct A { virtual void a(); }
>>> struct B { virtual void b(); }
>>> struct C : A, B { virtual void b(); }
>>> In Itanium ABI, C::b takes C* as an implicit "this" parameter;
>>> in order to work with B* pointers, there is an adjusting thunk in the
>>> C's vtable slot for "b".
>>> In Microsoft ABI, C::b takes B* as an implicit "this" parameter.
>>> No thunks are needed for vtable generation.
>>> I've only observed thunks when I took a member pointer for a class
>>> with multiple inheritance, but it was not specific to any particular
>>> method.
>> Interesting.  Does MSVC make a thunk for B's vtable in this, or does it
>> just double-emit the function body?
>>  struct A { virtual void a(); };
>>  struct B { virtual void a(); };
>>  struct C : A, B { virtual void a(); };
> Great question - it does emit a B-to-(A,C) adjusting thunk for the "C
> vtable for the B part"!
>> I also find it curious that MSVC uses a thunk for member pointers, since
>> the required this-adjustment is already plainly expressible in the member
>> pointer value.
> Me too actually.
> Reid, wdyt?
>>> Q1) Passing this to overriden methods
>>> I assume the type of C::b should be "void <...>(%struct.B* %this)" -
>>> does this look reasonable?
>> Yes, that seems reasonable.
>>> Can you suggest how to change the CodeGen to handle this appropriately?
>>> Do you know a non-painful way to do that?
>>> I think I'll need to:
>>> a) adjust CodeGenTypes::arrangeCXXMethodType
>>> ... and now it needs not only the RD and FTP, but MD also.
>>> Instead of "argTypes.push_back(GetThisType(Context, RD));"
>>> I'll probably need to ask CGCXXABI on the this type?
>> I would just make sure to pass the right RD down.
> Ah, yeah, I've missed this idea :)
>> The code calling
>> this will need to be significantly different anyway, since the call algorithm
>> is different.
>>> Is there an easy way to tell the most base class which declared a
>>> given virtual method?
>> That doesn't have a unique answer.
>> You can walk up the override chains, although it's possible that you'll
>> need to stop at a virtual base boundary.
>>> b) adjust all the places where the method may be called.
>>> btw, is there an easy way to know the base class offset in a given
>>> class in the CGCall ?
>> You'll need to construct a base path as you walk the override chains,
>> and then basically do that derived-to-base conversion.
>>> We do the same in Clang, but that'd require some API changes to
>>> VTableBuilder - i.e. you'll need to know a pair of classes to generate
>>> a vtable, not just one.
>> As Reid suggested, I think the way to go here is to make VTableBuilder
>> become ItaniumVTableBuilder and make a new MicrosoftVTableBuilder.
>> There should be a lot of common behavior you can share between
>> the implementations.
> Should they have a common base / interface or just separate at first?

If you think there's something that can be interestingly abstracted out, feel
free, but I'm not sure what it would be off-hand.


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list