Re: in-charge versus not-in-charge

[Paul Pluzhnikov]

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.