Emptyness vs. virtualness

[Jim Dehnert]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Jim" == Jim Dehnert <dehnert at transmeta.com> writes:
> 
>     Jim> But that's what I would have expected.  The rule is that we
>     Jim> first lay out the non-virtual things (C (not B), A2 (with A))
>     Jim> and then all the virtual bases (B).  By the time we get to B,
>     Jim> it's A can't be at 0, so we get a new one.
> 
> Yup, that's the issue all right.
> 
> So, how do we decide?

Well, I think it's well-defined now, and can be clarified if necessary.
Further, I think the alternative will be a messier rule.
So would it be beneficial enough to be worth changing it?

It might save up to one unit of alignment in the size (doesn't seem important)
to a case that I doubt is common.  Seems to me like a worse case for change
than Jason's proposal for vtable emission.

Jim
-- 
		Jim Dehnert		Transmeta Corp.
		dehnert at transmeta.com	(408) 919-6984
		dehnertj at acm.org