Message-Id: <199908251917.TAA82194@out4.ibm.net>
From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:17:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: potential vtable thunks problem
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id PAA22233
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

I don't know if you read egcs-patches or not, but I found an note about vtable 
thunks ('it' in the note). The note implies the vtable thunk bugs weren't fixed for 
2.95 and perhaps may not get fixed. 

>   In message <oraerg1096 DOT fsf AT cupuacu DOT lsd DOT dcc DOT unicamp DOT br>you write:
>   > In fact, I seem to recall there was an attempt to fix it for gcc 2.95
>   > (was it Martin v. Löewis?), but, if it ever got in the CVS tree, it
>   > seems that it didn't work for this case :-(
> Just a note, thunks may be on their way out.  I'm hearing more and more people
> talk about the evils of thunks, particularly for high end processors.
> 
> Depending on the changing winds, it may or may not be worth the time/effort to
> fix the dynamic thunk problem.
> 
> jeffv
>

The note implies the vtable thunk problems are still there, and a
--- 
Mark Elbrecht, snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com
http://snowball.frogspace.net/