On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 10/30/12 2:13 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 30 October 2012 at 07:43:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > > On 10/29/2012 11:08 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> > > > void foo();
> > >
> > > There will be no line information for the above.
> > >
> > > > void main()
> > > > {
> > > > foo();
> > >
> > > For this, yes, but that is not what is being asked for.
> >
> > Well, personally I think I would enjoy having this line number. The more
> > information the better.
>
> Not sure I'm following but essentially if foo() is undefined the most
> interesting file/line references would be for all calls to foo(). The lines
> declaring foo() are nice to have but much less interesting.
>
> Andrei
I don't think I agree. The key questions that come to mind from an
undefined symbol error at link time are:
1) Why did the compiler believe it would be? If it didn't think it was a
valid usable symbol, it would have already errored at the call site during
semantic analysis.
2) what's the fully qualified name of the symbol? Maybe the compiler is
matching a different symbol than expected. However, if that was the case,
either it'd link against the unexpected match successfully, or see also
#1.
Having the location of some or all of the call sites might help you find
#1, but that's a poor substitute for pointing directly at #1.
