[Ocs] Attica patches

[Laszlo Papp]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Laszlo Papp <djszapi at archlinux.us> wrote:
>> I can try to make this patch as soon as possible, any objection to ?
>
> http://djszapi.dyndns-home.com/platformdependent_v2.patch
>
> Please comment on it. Thank you in advance!

Updated version: Reviewed by: David Faure (heretofore)
http://djszapi.dyndns-home.com/0001-Implement-a-separate-PlatformDependentV2-interface-p.patch

The only small change I did compared to the previous version of this
patch is that I implemented a separate platformdependent_v2.cpp
because of the non-inline virtual destructor in that class. I have
been told by David Faure as it is a good practice to do like that.

The reason is the following behind that claim:
Non-inline dtor for v2 would make things less fragile, here's why:
The vtable (and RTTI for dynamic_cast) is generated in the .o that
contains the implementation of the first virtual method of the class.
If all methods are pure virtual --or inlined -- then it might not
happen inside the base library which means then that it could happen
twice in two derived classes in two libs based on the base lib -- and
then dynamic_cast will fail and adding a non-inline dtor doesn't cost
you that much :-)

In more words, from the web: "Some compilers (read: gcc) look for the
first-encountered non-inline virtual method body and use it to decide
where to put the virtual method table. If you don't have any virtual
methods with bodies in a .cpp file, the virtual method table is not
created." So we really want one single vtable for the class and not
one per user of the class.

Any objection to this patch or can I push it ?

Best Regards,
Laszlo Papp