PING! Could somebody please, pretty please review this patch? It's not very big or complex, and it's been out there for three weeks now....Is there something else I need to do for this?
-- Caroline Tice cmt...@google.com On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> wrote: > Ping? Ping? > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> wrote: >> Ping? >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> wrote: >>> This patch replaces the fixed sized array that was holding vtable >>> pointers for a particular class hierarchy with a vector, allowing for >>> dynamic resizing. It also fixes issues with the warning diagnostics. >>> I am in the process of running regression tests with this patch; >>> assuming they all pass, is this patch OK to commit? >>> >>> -- Caroline Tice >>> cmt...@google.com >>> >>> 2013-08-08 Caroline Tice <cmt...@google.com> >>> >>> * vtable-class-hierarchy.c: Remove unnecessary include statements. >>> (MAX_SET_SIZE): Remove unnecessary constant. >>> (register_construction_vtables): Make vtable_ptr_array parameter >>> into a vector; remove num_args parameter. Change array accesses to >>> vector accesses. >>> (register_other_binfo_vtables): Ditto. >>> (insert_call_to_register_set): Ditto. >>> (insert_call_to_register_pair): Ditto. >>> (output_set_info): Ditto. Also change warning calls to warning_at >>> calls, and fix format of warning messages. >>> (register_all_pairs): Change vtbl_ptr_array from an array into a >>> vector. Remove num_vtable_args (replace with calls to vector >>> length). >>> Change array stores & accesses to vector functions. Change calls to >>> register_construction_vtables, register_other_binfo_vtables, >>> insert_call_to_register_set, insert_call_to_register_pair and >>> output_set_info to match their new signatures. Change warning to >>> warning_at and fix the format of the warning message.
