------- Additional Comments From phresnel at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 15:24 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > If any suggestion is made to the user, it should be to ensure that all > non-pure > virtual functions are defined. Which is what the GCC FAQ already says: > http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#vtables
This is a perfect suggestion, of course. But the suggestion I am trying to make, sorry if I was unprecise, is that g++ or ld *does* output *some* suggestion (or better error message). I see it as with good documentation: It is optional, but would increase usability and decrease the chill-aways before the matter in question. I know this is not llvm, and I am not a user of llvm, but this is primarily because clang++ is yet incomplete vs. the holy standard, and because gcc optimization seems superiour to any other free compiler. But at three things llvm *seems* to be largely superiour over gcc (incl. some proprietary ones), which is a) error messages [0] b) fast compiles [1] c) low memory usage [1] I'd also prefer gcc from the license viewpoint, but honestly, it is such implementation "detail" that could make quite a few people move away from gcc, at least for on-the-hack compilation (in contrast to complete release builds). [0] http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html [1] http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#performance -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11793 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
