From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Mar 20 07:17:50 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA18392
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 07:17:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA18387
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 07:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] 
	by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 0.56 #1)
	id E0w7jaw-0002sI-00; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 08:17:34 -0700
To: James Mansion <james@wgold.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Barb problem, FOUND 
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 Mar 1997 19:57:21 GMT."
		<333196A1.51F3@wgold.demon.co.uk> 
References: <333196A1.51F3@wgold.demon.co.uk>  <332BC869.37B7@wgold.demon.co.uk> <199703160612.XAA13150@rover.village.org> <199703171856.LAA07505@rover.village.org> 
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 08:17:28 -0700
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Message-Id: <E0w7jaw-0002sI-00@rover.village.org>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <333196A1.51F3@wgold.demon.co.uk> James Mansion writes:
: Just because a particular compiler is full of bugs doesn't mean that a
: construct allowed by the language spec is dubious.  No way.

I misspoke myself.  There are several compilers that don't handle this
construct correctly.  They generally don't whine about it, but they
generally do generate horrible code for this case.  We saw a few years
ago that by removing the inline virtuals we had binaries that were
500k! smaller.  We also found with OI that lots of compilers had
subtle bugs with inline virtuals.

Given all the problems that multiple compilers have implementing it
effectively, I think that it is as least unwise to use the construct.
In my book, that makes it dubious, but others will have a different
opinion.

Warner