Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "a_vtabl".
Did you mean:
a_vtable
2016 Feb 29
0
[cfe-dev] RFC: A new ABI for virtual calls, and a change to the virtual call representation in the IR
...; };
>
> void fcall(A *a) {
> a->f();
> }
>
> void gcall(A *a) {
> a->g();
> }
>
> typedef void (A::*mfp)();
>
> mfp getmfp() {
> return &A::g;
> }
>
> void callmfp(A *a, mfp m) {
> (a->*m)();
> }
>
> In IR:
>
> @A_vtable = {i8*, i8*, i32, i32} {0, @A::rtti, @A::f - (@A_vtable + 16),
> @A::g - (@A_vtable + 16)}
> @B_vtable = {i8*, i8*, i32} {0, @B::rtti, @B::h - (@B_vtable + 16)}
> @C_vtable0 = {i8*, i8*, i32, i32, i32} {0, @C::rtti, @C::f - (@C_vtable0 +
> 16), @C::g - (@C_vtable0 + 16), @C::h - (@C_vt...
2016 Feb 29
10
RFC: A new ABI for virtual calls, and a change to the virtual call representation in the IR
...{
virtual void h();
};
struct C : A, B {
virtual void f();
virtual void g();
virtual void h();
};
void fcall(A *a) {
a->f();
}
void gcall(A *a) {
a->g();
}
typedef void (A::*mfp)();
mfp getmfp() {
return &A::g;
}
void callmfp(A *a, mfp m) {
(a->*m)();
}
In IR:
@A_vtable = {i8*, i8*, i32, i32} {0, @A::rtti, @A::f - (@A_vtable + 16), @A::g - (@A_vtable + 16)}
@B_vtable = {i8*, i8*, i32} {0, @B::rtti, @B::h - (@B_vtable + 16)}
@C_vtable0 = {i8*, i8*, i32, i32, i32} {0, @C::rtti, @C::f - (@C_vtable0 + 16), @C::g - (@C_vtable0 + 16), @C::h - (@C_vtable0 + 16)}
@C_vtab...
2016 Mar 08
2
RFC: A new ABI for virtual calls, and a change to the virtual call representation in the IR
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 2:48 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:53 PM, < <mailto:>> wrote:
> @A_vtable = {i8*, i8*, i32, i32} {0, @A::rtti, @A::f - (@A_vtable + 16), @A::g - (@A_vtable + 16)}
>
> There's a subtlety about this aspect of the ABI that I should call attention to. The virtual function references can only be resolved directly by the static linker if they are defined in the sam...
2016 Mar 16
2
RFC: A new ABI for virtual calls, and a change to the virtual call representation in the IR
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:53 PM, <> wrote:
>>
>> @A_vtable = {i8*, i8*, i32, i32} {0, @A::rtti, @A::f - (@A_vtable + 16),
>> @A::g - (@A_vtable + 16)}
>>
>
> There's a subtlety about this aspect of the ABI that I should call
> attention to. The virtual function references can only be resolved directly
> by the static linker if...
2016 Mar 11
3
RFC: A new ABI for virtual calls, and a change to the virtual call representation in the IR
...jmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2016, at 2:48 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 1:53 PM, < <>> wrote:
>> @A_vtable = {i8*, i8*, i32, i32} {0, @A::rtti, @A::f - (@A_vtable + 16), @A::g - (@A_vtable + 16)}
>>
>> There's a subtlety about this aspect of the ABI that I should call attention to. The virtual function references can only be resolved directly by the static linker if they are defined in...