On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:12:02 +0300, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:26:50 +0200, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
golgeliyele wrote:
I don't think C++ and gcc set a good bar here.
Short of writing our own linker, we're a bit stuck with what ld does.
That's not true. The compiler has knowledge of what symbols will be
passed to the linker, and can display its own, much nicer error
messages. I've mentioned this in our previous discussion on this topic.
Not without reading the .o files passed to the linker, and the
libraries, and figuring out what would be pulled in from those
libraries. In essence, the compiler would have to become a linker.
It's not impossible, but is a tremendous amount of work in order to
improve one error message, and one error message that generations of C
and C++ programmers are comfortable dealing with.
What's wrong with parsing low-level linker error messages and output them
in human-readable form? E.g. demangle missing symbols.
