Just a reminder that the Watcom-style resolution of forward references that
Bill wants can still be achieved by use of the -( and -) options to group
libraries on the link line. Mutliple-pass resolution will be performed on
all libraries within the group. Just don’t forget the closing -)!
We don’t find that this adds anything substantial to the link time for our
Also, speaking of link lines don’t forget the standard trick that -langc++
is required at link time if you want exceptions to work.
“Kris Warkentin” <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
I think it’s more of an optimization. Consider all the information that
linker would have to hold in memory if it were going to try to resolve
forward references. Your only other option would be to make the linker do
multiple passes but, considering that linking is often the longest stage
(especially if you’re only recompiling 1 object in a big project), it’s
probably better to just put the onus on the developer. Now, if we had a
nice incremental linker…but that’s another thread.
“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> QTPS@EarthLink.net> > wrote in message
news:ani71a$mk2$> email@example.com> …
Not necessarily. Especially with class libraries.
It is quite common for two generic, global scope objects to refer to
So then, are we saying, it’s not a bug it’s a feature?
“Kris Warkentin” <> firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote in message
news:ani155$85q$> email@example.com> …
Yes it is. That shouldn’t come up very often however and, if it does,
usually a sign that something needs to be redesigned.