search for: r240588

...can’t find the vtable for ICmpInst. > > I looked at the file, and this didn't seem true (e.g. > GetElementPtrInst::init is still out-of-line). But then I realized you > mean virtual functions, so these classes no longer have a key > function. > > This is probably Pete's r240588. I suppose we could add key functions > to these classes (even if they're not used for anything). I'm not sure > how we'd prevent this from regressing though :-/ > In theory the LLVM style guide mandates key functions for all dynamic classes (under the claim of build performan...

[Ooops, sent to the old list address by mistake] On 30 Jul 2015, at 21:04, tom at stellard.net wrote: > > For flags like -fno-rtti (are there others?) that are required in some cases > (I think -fno-rtti is required only if you sub-class LLVM objects), I would propose > adding a separate flag like --uses-rtti. This would give users more fine-grained > control over which flags

...Inst. >> >> I looked at the file, and this didn't seem true (e.g. >> GetElementPtrInst::init is still out-of-line). But then I realized you >> mean virtual functions, so these classes no longer have a key >> function. >> >> This is probably Pete's r240588. I suppose we could add key functions >> to these classes (even if they're not used for anything). I'm not sure >> how we'd prevent this from regressing though :-/ >> >> In theory the LLVM style guide mandates key functions for all dynamic classes (under the cla...

...> I looked at the file, and this didn't seem true (e.g. >>> GetElementPtrInst::init is still out-of-line). But then I realized you >>> mean virtual functions, so these classes no longer have a key >>> function. >>> >>> This is probably Pete's r240588. I suppose we could add key functions >>> to these classes (even if they're not used for anything). I'm not sure >>> how we'd prevent this from regressing though :-/ >>> >>> In theory the LLVM style guide mandates key functions for all dynamic classe...