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

John McCall rjmccall at apple.com
Mon Apr 8 17:27:04 PDT 2013

On Apr 8, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:33 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote:
> >> 2013/4/8 John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com>:
> >>> 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?
> >
> > I think it allows them to avoid the union between non-virtual methods
> > and virtual methods.  Seems a bit cleaner and more obvious to me, but
> > it has tradeoffs in terms of code size at the call site and the number
> > of conditional vs. indirect branches that you have to do:
> > indirect to thunk and indirect through vtable, vs conditional between
> > two indirect calls
> Oh, does MSVC not do the union thing?  They always make a thunk to do
> the virtual call?
> If so, this "thunk" is potentially quite a bit more than just a thunk — it may
> actually have ABI pointer-equality requirements on it for e.g. member
> pointer equality tests.
> I don't believe there's any need for that -- comparisons on pointers to virtual member functions produce unspecified results (see [expr.eq]p2, second-last sentence).

Oh, interesting.  I guess Itanium made it work because it fell out easily enough to do so.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130408/5d97b1aa/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list