From: Oleg Goldshmidt (pub_at_nonexisting.hamakor.org.il)
Date: Tue 22 Jun 2004 - 02:47:38 IDT
Muli Ben-Yehuda <mulix_at_mulix.org> writes:
> And you're correct here, but the obfuscation was done by the compiler,
> not the programmer. Standard C++ name mangling, something about
> QAction and QObject. There is a nifty utility to undo the mangling and
> give you the function's signature, but I don't recall its name.
GNU ld(1) has a --demangle option - I vaguely recall using it
once. Check the info pages.
To Dan's original question: most likely either a library is missing or
some parts (libraries?) were compiled with different compilers
(different versions of g++ maybe) that mangle differently. One can
control name-mangling style to some extent - info gcc will have hints.
There are other reasons why an object may be missing from the linker's
field of view. An example involving one library too many (rather than
a missing library) is described in [warning - shameless plug]
http://www.goldshmidt.org/patterns/stupid/include.html
-- Oleg Goldshmidt | pub_at_NOSPAM.goldshmidt.org ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request_at_linux.org.il with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request_at_linux.org.il
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Mon 21 Jun 2004 - 23:58:21 IDT