From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-ID: <B0000099440@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:49:29 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: potential vtable thunks problem
In-reply-to: <199908251917.TAA82194@out4.ibm.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id FAA20628
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Well I scanned gcc mailing list for test examples and found that I'm 
getting the same problems. All was Ok in my own programs as these 
problems doesn't appear there. Perhaps I'll leave rebuilding GCC-2.95.1 
in evening.

Andris

On 25 Aug 99, at 15:17, Mark E. wrote:

> 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/
>