On Aug 24, 2007, at 4:03 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >> + /* The definition of equality is not straightforward for >> floating point, >> + so we won't use operator==. Use one of the following, or >> write >> + whatever it is you really mean. */ >> + bool operator==(const APFloat &) const; // DO NOT IMPLEMENT > > Hey Dale, > > I think that you can just remove this and the compiler will give you > a compile-time error if you try to use it. If you define it like > this, you just get a link-time error.
Yep, and the linker error message doesn't tell you where the reference is coming from (I'm speaking from experience). I mostly did it this way because I see about 40 other places it was done this way, and I do see the utility as a statement of intent. Why is this one different? _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
