AlexVlx added a comment. In D150746#4357837 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150746#4357837>, @rjmccall wrote:
> I see. Yes, in that case I think you're right that we can't test this yet — > only base-subobject ctors and dtors get VTT parameters, we only emit calls to > those from other ctors and dtors, and those ctors and dtors will always have > their own stores to the v-table slot that will be invalid IR. So I agree > with the plan of building up an XFAILed test. You should be able to locally > build up that test by just adding an early return to > `CodeGenFunction::InitializeVTablePointer` — obviously that will break a > bunch of other tests, but as long as you don't commit it, you can create a > fairly complete test case that at least should work in the future. I find it > helpful to do that as you're going instead of going back at the end of a > patch series and trying to add tests for all the cases you implemented. > Please test (1) the declarations of base-subobject ctors/dtors, (2) the > initial passing of the VTT argument from complete-object to base-subobject > ctors/dtors, and (3) the forwarding of VTT arguments in base-subobject > ctors/dtors to the ctors/dtors of their own base subobjects. > > The actual code LGTM. Apologies for the delay in resuming this. I've updated the test to be more comprehensive. FWIW I do not have commit rights, should I just follow the procedure here https://www.llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access, or have a few initial patches committed by one of my colleagues & then ask for commit access? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150746/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150746 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
