Dear Ian Lance Taylor, you wrote:
> > So I guess you do not mean by 'creates a new MultiStreambuf' constructions
> > like:
> > void fun()
> > {
> > MultiStreambuf ms;
> > MultiStreambuf *msp = new MultiStreambuf;
> > }
>
> That is pretty much exactly what I do mean, actually. There is some
> more information at
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.0/gcc/Vague-Linkage.html
Interesting. I like the term 'vague linkage'. Apparently a vtable isn't by
default/always/on different architectures filled with the addresses of virtual
functions if these functions are defined inline and not explicitly called from
other members. But the repair seems to be simple: as virtual functions need
addresses simply avoid using inline definitions for them. Remarkable that the
problem only shows up on the armel architecture. But better now than never,
isn't it?
> > If you think the approach outlined there is somehow flawed, I would appreciate
> > receiving your thoughts.
>
> The notes there don't seem to cover this case: the case in which all
> virtual methods are inline.
That's a nice subtlety that neatly blends in with the practice of avoiding
inline virtual members. Something to add to the Annotations, I guess.
Thanks for your quick replies and supportive comments!
--
Frank B. Brokken
Center for Information Technology, University of Groningen
(+31) 50 363 9281
Public PGP key: http://pgp.surfnet.nl
Key Fingerprint: DF32 13DE B156 7732 E65E 3B4D 7DB2 A8BE EAE4 D8AA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
