Tip: library size reduction

[Michael Pyne]

On Thursday 02 July 2009 21:29:44 Benjamin Meyer wrote:
> Why not work on getting a patch for upstream in gcc?
>
> -Benjamin Meyer

I'm not convinced it's actually a GCC bug.  The bug was closed as not-a-bug, 
saying that the different ctors were for the base object and not-a-base-object 
constructors[1].  At best I'd say that gcc could perhaps point both mangled 
names to the same generated code but that probably breaks a ELF or ABI 
requirement.

[1] If I understand it correctly, one is for the case of the constructor 
having to allocate memory, and the other is for the case of a constructor that 
is a subclass.  In the case given in the bug the class is not subclassing 
anything else so the ctors are the same.  I think the case of virtual base 
classes can itself introduce a different type of ctor but I don't have time to 
Google it right now.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20090702/f128db1a/attachment.sig>