Muli Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And you're correct here, but the obfuscation was done by the compiler, > not the programmer. Standard C++ name mangling, something about > QAction and QObject. There is a nifty utility to undo the mangling and > give you the function's signature, but I don't recall its name.
GNU ld(1) has a --demangle option - I vaguely recall using it once. Check the info pages. To Dan's original question: most likely either a library is missing or some parts (libraries?) were compiled with different compilers (different versions of g++ maybe) that mangle differently. One can control name-mangling style to some extent - info gcc will have hints. There are other reasons why an object may be missing from the linker's field of view. An example involving one library too many (rather than a missing library) is described in [warning - shameless plug] http://www.goldshmidt.org/patterns/stupid/include.html -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
