| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The relative vtable ABI will use a struct rather than an array as the type
of a vtable. LLVM only allows 32-bit integers as struct indices, so we need
to use 32-bit integers to get addresses of address points. In order to keep
the code simple, we might as well do that unconditionally.
It's probably a reasonable implementation limit to support no more than 2
billion virtual functions per class.
This change causes quite a bit of churn in the test suite, so I'm making
it separately.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18113
llvm-svn: 263469
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
something. :)
llvm-svn: 249223
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Ensure that the vptr store in the most-derived constructor is not behind
an invariant group barrier. Previously, the base-most vptr store would
be the one behind no barrier, and that could result in the creator of
the object thinking it had the base-most vtable.
This bug caused clang call pure virtual functions when called from
constructor body.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13373
llvm-svn: 249197
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It is dangerous to do LTO on code with strict-vtable-pointers, because
one module has invariant.group.barriers, and the other one not.
In the future I want to just strip all invariant.group metadata from
vptrs loads/stores and get rid of invariant.group.barrier calls.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12580
llvm-svn: 247724
|
|
|
For more goto:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-July/044227.html
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12312
llvm-svn: 247723
|
