[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: in-charge versus not-in-charge
From: |
Paul Pluzhnikov |
Subject: |
Re: in-charge versus not-in-charge |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:13:02 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux) |
jsju <jsju@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> Does anyone knows what 'in-charge' and 'not-in-charge' means?
It's an internal impelementation detail, which should not be of
any concern to you.
> This happens a lot when I compile stuff.
It doesn't. It may happen when you *link* stuff.
> example:
>
> g++ -o qtext viewer.o main.o ...
> main.o: In function `Viewer::Viewer[not-in-charge]()':
> main.o(.text+0x0): multiple definition of
> `Viewer::Viewer[not-in-charge]()'
> viewer.o(.text+0x0): first defined here
> main.o: In function `Viewer::Viewer[in-charge]()':
Your code is improperly structured: the Viewer::Viewer() is *defined*
in both viewer.o and main.o, but your intention was probably to
define it in only in viewer.o.
Cheers,
--
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
Remove /-nsp/ for email.