On 10/30/12 5:40 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/30/12 5:07 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
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.
Not getting this at all. All I'm saying is that if the compiler says "I can't
find that foo() you're asking for", the most interesting piece of information
for me is "where did I ask for it?"
Ok, so it points to a place in the code where you used it. You look at
that and say, yup, I did indeed use it. Not surprising.
In the presence of overloading, that is most often surprising. And
usually it's not "I" who uses it, it's transitively called by some code
I write. That's the hardest part.
Now, why doesn't
the linker find it?
Because it's declared but not explicitly made part of the project.
Why did the compiler believe it existed?
Grep takes care of that. Finding the declaration is never a problem.
The site of the usage isn't remotely useful for answering either of those
questions and those are the ones that form the disconnect between the
compiler, who believed it existed and let the code pass to the next
stage), and the linker.
Non-issue. Grep takes care of that. Finding the cross-references and the
overloading part are the hard problems here. This is so clear to me for
so many reasons, I am paralyzed by options.
Andrei
