Walter Bright Wrote: > Jason House wrote: > > IMHO, this type of thing is easy to understand. > > Yeah, well, I still get regular emails (for the last 20 years at least) > from the gamut of professional programmers at all levels of expertise > who do not understand what "undefined symbol" from the linker means. It > happens so often I am forced to consider the idea that the defect lies > with me <g>. > > If I could figure a way to design *that* out of a linker, I would.
For every extern generate a weak symbol that does nothing but assert out with an error message; if it's properly resolved it goes away, if not then it's executed when the symbol is called. Now the linker isn't giving any errors. I actually remember doing that once! What the hell was I doing that for? Some kind of late binding malarkey maybe.
