Actions
| Post | |
| Subscribe | |
| Unsubscribe |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Subobject constructors
- To: cxx-abi@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Mark Mitchell <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Subobject constructors
- From: Jim Dehnert <dehnert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 01:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Mitchell <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The wording in 3.3 about subobject constructors is misleading: > > If the not-in-charge constructor calls constructors for base class > subobjects that do not need construction vtables, the construction > vtable parameter is not passed to the base class subobject > constructor, and the base class subobject constructors use their > complete object vtables for initialization. > > This is also true when an in-charge constructor is making the call. > There is never a need to pass a VTT to a base class subobject that > doesn't have virtual bases. See if it looks better now... Jim - Jim Dehnert dehnert@xxxxxxx (650)933-4272
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Subobject constructors
- From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Subobject constructors
- Prev by Date: Re: Pure virtual functions
- Next by Date: Re: Covariant returns
- Previous by thread: Subobject constructors
- Next by thread: Re: Subobject constructors
- Index(es):