Re: VTT clarification

[dehnert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Dehnert)]

> From: Mark Mitchell <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The VTT description is slightly confusing:
> 
>   - The description for `secondary virtual pointers' specifies which
>     subobjects get secondary virtual pointers.  As written, it
>     suggests that even secondary virtual pointers for primary base
>     classes are included.
> 
>   - The note before the example says:
> 
>     secondary virtual pointers are present for all bases with either
>     virtual bases or virtual function declarations overridden along a
>     virtual path. The only exception is that a primary non-virtual
>     base class does not require a secondary virtual pointer.
> 
> If there are not supposed to be secondary virtual pointers for primary
> bases (and I think that there should not be), then that should go in
> the description of secondary virtual pointers; the notes should be
> informational, rather than normative.

I fixed this (the description of secondary virtual pointers), I think.
Does it look OK now?

Jim

-	    Jim Dehnert		dehnert@xxxxxxx
				(650)933-4272