Another vtable layout fix, making us match gcc better.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@99812 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
Anders Carlsson 2010-03-29 15:08:41 +00:00
Родитель 0b4c9b5834
Коммит adb507df13
2 изменённых файлов: 39 добавлений и 2 удалений

Просмотреть файл

@ -1401,8 +1401,15 @@ void VtableBuilder::ComputeThisAdjustments() {
MethodInfo.BaseOffset), MD);
// Check if we need an adjustment at all.
if (MethodInfo.BaseOffsetInLayoutClass == Overrider.Offset)
continue;
if (MethodInfo.BaseOffsetInLayoutClass == Overrider.Offset) {
// When a return thunk is needed by a derived class that overrides a
// virtual base, gcc uses a virtual 'this' adjustment as well.
// While the thunk itself might be needed by vtables in subclasses or
// in construction vtables, there doesn't seem to be a reason for using
// the thunk in this vtable. Still, we do so to match gcc.
if (VTableThunks.lookup(VtableIndex).Return.isEmpty())
continue;
}
ThisAdjustment ThisAdjustment =
ComputeThisAdjustment(MD, MethodInfo.BaseOffsetInLayoutClass, Overrider);

Просмотреть файл

@ -1273,3 +1273,33 @@ struct E : D {
void E::e() { }
}
namespace Test29 {
// Test that the covariant return thunk for B::f will have a virtual 'this' adjustment,
// matching gcc.
struct V1 { };
struct V2 : virtual V1 { };
struct A {
virtual V1 *f();
};
// CHECK: Vtable for 'Test29::B' (6 entries).
// CHECK-NEXT: 0 | vbase_offset (0)
// CHECK-NEXT: 1 | vcall_offset (0)
// CHECK-NEXT: 2 | offset_to_top (0)
// CHECK-NEXT: 3 | Test29::B RTTI
// CHECK-NEXT: -- (Test29::A, 0) vtable address --
// CHECK-NEXT: -- (Test29::B, 0) vtable address --
// CHECK-NEXT: 4 | Test29::V2 *Test29::B::f()
// CHECK-NEXT: [return adjustment: 0 non-virtual, -24 vbase offset offset]
// CHECK-NEXT: [this adjustment: 0 non-virtual, -24 vcall offset offset]
// CHECK-NEXT: 5 | Test29::V2 *Test29::B::f()
struct B : virtual A {
virtual V2 *f();
};
V2 *B::f() { return 0; }
}