[cfe-users] Linking problem with implicit instantiation of constructor/destructor

[David Blaikie via cfe-users]

Yeah, can't seem to divine the concrete wording here either - perhaps
Richard will have a moment to chime in.

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 6:10 AM Jaroslav Zeman via cfe-users <
cfe-users at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> >
> > What happens if you change the order of the .cpp files, putting
> > template.cpp first; is it stil unresolved?
> >
> > clang++ -o test template.cpp main.cpp
>
> The order doesn't matter.
>
> > I don't believe this code is valid according to C++. I believe it would
> > require an explicit instantiation of the ctor/dtor somewhere to make that
> > code valid - though I don't have chapter and verse on the spec at hand
> just
> > now to back that up.
>
> I tried to read the c++ specs, but didn't find anything, that would
> clearly
> state, if this is correct or incorrect. But the specs are too complicated
> for
> me to understand.
>
> My opinion is that it is bad to rely on implicit instantiation to happen
> somewhere and don't do the explicit one. So I've already fixed all these
> problems in our code and now I am just curious, what others think about it.
>
> JZ.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-users mailing list
> cfe-users at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-users/attachments/20200419/1a4b2441/attachment.html>