[lld] r354704 - s/method/function/g since function is the correct name in C++.

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

Author: ruiu
Date: Fri Feb 22 15:59:51 2019
New Revision: 354704

URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=354704&view=rev
Log:
s/method/function/g since function is the correct name in C++.

Modified:
    lld/trunk/docs/missingkeyfunction.rst

Modified: lld/trunk/docs/missingkeyfunction.rst
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/lld/trunk/docs/missingkeyfunction.rst?rev=354704&r1=354703&r2=354704&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- lld/trunk/docs/missingkeyfunction.rst (original)
+++ lld/trunk/docs/missingkeyfunction.rst Fri Feb 22 15:59:51 2019
@@ -7,20 +7,20 @@ If your build failed with a linker error
   the vtable symbol may be undefined because the class is missing its key function (see https://lld.llvm.org/missingkeyfunction)
 
 it's likely that your class C has a key function (defined by the ABI as the first
-non-pure, non-inline, virtual method), but you haven't actually defined it.
+non-pure, non-inline, virtual function), but you haven't actually defined it.
 
 When a class has a key function, the compiler emits the vtable (and some other
 things as well) only in the translation unit that defines that key function. Thus,
 if you're missing the key function, you'll also be missing the vtable. If no other
-function calls your missing method, you won't see any undefined reference errors
+function calls your missing function, you won't see any undefined reference errors
 for it, but you will see undefined references to the vtable symbol.
 
-When a class has no non-pure, non-inline, virtual methods, there is no key
-method, and the compiler is forced to emit the vtable in every translation unit
+When a class has no non-pure, non-inline, virtual functions, there is no key
+function, and the compiler is forced to emit the vtable in every translation unit
 that references the class. In this case, it is emitted in a COMDAT section,
 which allows the linker to eliminate all duplicate copies. This is still
 wasteful in terms of object file size and link time, so it's always advisable to
-ensure there is at least one eligible method that can serve as the key function.
+ensure there is at least one eligible function that can serve as the key function.
 
 Here are the most common mistakes that lead to this error:
 
@@ -36,8 +36,8 @@ Say you have a base class declared in a
     ...
   };
 
-Here, ``~B`` is the first non-pure, non-inline, virtual method, so it is the key
-method. If you forget to define ``B::~B`` in your source file, the compiler will
+Here, ``~B`` is the first non-pure, non-inline, virtual function, so it is the key
+function. If you forget to define ``B::~B`` in your source file, the compiler will
 not emit the vtable for ``B``, and you'll get an undefined reference to "vtable
 for B".
 
@@ -47,9 +47,9 @@ the first eligible key function and it's
 also more likely that you won't have any direct references to the destructor, so
 you won't see any undefined reference errors that point directly to the problem.
 
-The solution in this case is to implement the missing method.
+The solution in this case is to implement the missing function.
 
-Forgetting to declare a virtual method in an abstract class as pure
+Forgetting to declare a virtual function in an abstract class as pure
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Say you have an abstract base class declared in a header file::
@@ -65,18 +65,18 @@ Say you have an abstract base class decl
   };
 
 This base class is intended to be abstract, but you forgot to mark one of the
-methods pure. Here, ``A::bar``, being non-pure, is nominated as the key function,
+functions pure. Here, ``A::bar``, being non-pure, is nominated as the key function,
 and as a result, the vtable for ``A`` is not emitted, because the compiler is
 waiting for a translation unit that defines ``A::bar``.
 
 The solution in this case is to add the missing ``= 0`` to the declaration of
 ``A::bar``.
 
-Key method is defined, but the linker doesn't see it
+Key function is defined, but the linker doesn't see it
 ----------------------------------------------------
 
 It's also possible that you have defined the key function somewhere, but the
-object file containing the definition of that method isn't being linked into
+object file containing the definition of that function isn't being linked into
 your application.
 
 The solution in this case is to check your dependencies to make sure that