Emptyness vs. virtualness

[Jim Dehnert]

Martin von Loewis wrote:
> 
> > But that's what I would have expected.  The rule is that we first lay out
> > the non-virtual things (C (not B), A2 (with A)) and then all the virtual
> > bases (B).  By the time we get to B, it's A can't be at 0, so we get a new
> > one.
> 
> In 2.4-III, there is a statement
> 
> # Any indirect primary base class E of the current class C, that has
> # been chosen as the primary base class of some other base class
> # (direct or indirect, virtual or non-virtual) of C, will be allocated
> # as part of that other base class, and is not allocated here.

I stand corrected.  The current ABI is clear, but in the opposite sense that I
thought.  I simply didn't read far enough, and I apologize for my confusion.

Jim

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