RE: [pooma-dev] [QMTrack] new issue kcc_auto_oneper

[Julian C. Cummings]

I'm a little baffled by this because I always 
thought that the --oneper flag in KCC was a 
convenience meant to slim down executable sizes,
not a necessity to avoid multiple definition
errors.  We have not set the --oneper flag as 
the default in the past because it makes KCC
builds painfully slow.  Could you please cite
an example or two of things that don't build 
correctly in Pooma without the --oneper flag?
Maybe someone with access to the KCC compiler
could have a look and see if we are doing 
something fundamentally wrong when building 
Pooma codes under KCC.  For example, multiple
definition errors usually come from not properly
resolving object files against one another at
prelinking time before the actual link step.

Julian C.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 3:43 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [pooma-dev] [QMTrack] new issue kcc_auto_oneper
> 
> 
> The issue kcc_auto_oneper was created by oldham on 2001-09-27 16:43 MDT.
> 
>   Issue ID: kcc_auto_oneper
>   Modification Time: 2001-09-27 16:43 MDT
>   Modifying User: oldham
>   State: submitted
>   Summary: When Using KCC, --oneper Should Be Default
>   Categories: correctness
>   Discussion: None
>   Description: 
>       KCC needs the --one_per flag to avoid multiple template 
>       instantiations.  The --oneper Pooma configuration flag causes 
>       --one_per to be passed to KCC.  This should be the deafault for 
>       KCC: both Stephen and I regularly trip over this. 
>       
>       
>   Assignee: oldham
>