I get the following when trying to link one of the STLSoft unit-test programs.

I'm guessing that there aren't enough symbols used to discriminate between records, but it's all conjecture.

(Am using DMC++ 8.44 b3, btw; also happens with 8.43)

Cheers

Matthew


link -DELEXECUTABLE -NOLOGO
.\stlsoft.unittest.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.0.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.1.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.2.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.3.obj+.\stlsoft
.unittest.4.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.5.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.6.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.7.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.8.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.9.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.
10.obj+.\stlsoft.unittest.11.obj,"..\..\bin\stlsoft.unittest.dm.stlsoft.exe",,kernel32.lib
..\..\lib\stlsoft.unittest.dm.lib kernel32.lib
OPTLINK (R) for Win32  Release 7.50B1
Copyright (C) Digital Mars 1989 - 2001  All Rights Reserved

.\stlsoft.unittest.1.obj(stlsoft.unittest.1)  Offset 015DCH Record
Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
?s_allocator@?1??get_allocator@?$auto_buffer@stlsoft@HV?$new_allocator@stlsoft@H@1@$0BA@@stlsoft@@SAAAV?$new_allocator
@stlsoft@H@3@XZ23@4V43@A
.\stlsoft.unittest.3.obj(stlsoft.unittest.3)  Offset 01E50H Record
Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
?s_allocator@?1??get_allocator@?$auto_buffer@stlsoft@HV?$new_allocator@stlsoft@H@1@$0BA@@stlsoft@@SAAAV?$new_allocator
@stlsoft@H@3@XZ23@4V43@A
.\stlsoft.unittest.4.obj(stlsoft.unittest.4)  Offset 01B08H Record
Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
?s_allocator@?1??get_allocator@?$auto_buffer@stlsoft@HV?$new_allocator@stlsoft@H@1@$0BA@@stlsoft@@SAAAV?$new_allocator
@stlsoft@H@3@XZ23@4V43@A
.\stlsoft.unittest.5.obj(stlsoft.unittest.5)  Offset 018D5H Record
Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
?s_allocator@?1??get_allocator@?$auto_buffer@stlsoft@HV?$new_allocator@stlsoft@H@1@$0BA@@stlsoft@@SAAAV?$new_allocator
@stlsoft@H@3@XZ23@4V43@A
.\stlsoft.unittest.6.obj(stlsoft.unittest.6)  Offset 019CAH Record
Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
?s_allocator@?1??get_allocator@?$auto_buffer@stlsoft@HV?$new_allocator@stlsoft@H@1@$0BA@@stlsoft@@SAAAV?$new_allocator
@stlsoft@H@3@XZ23@4V43@A
.\stlsoft.unittest.7.obj(stlsoft.unittest.7)  Offset 01BCDH Record
Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
?s_allocator@?1??get_allocator@?$auto_buffer@stlsoft@HV?$new_allocator@stlsoft@H@1@$0BA@@stlsoft@@SAAAV?$new_allocator
@stlsoft@H@3@XZ23@4V43@A
.\stlsoft.unittest.8.obj(stlsoft.unittest.8)  Offset 01A20H Record
Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
?s_allocator@?1??get_allocator@?$auto_buffer@stlsoft@HV?$new_allocator@stlsoft@H@1@$0BA@@stlsoft@@SAAAV?$new_allocator
@stlsoft@H@3@XZ23@4V43@A
.\stlsoft.unittest.8.obj(stlsoft.unittest.8)  Offset 01F19H Record
Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
?s_allocator@?1??get_allocator@?$auto_buffer@stlsoft@HV?$malloc_allocator@stlsoft@H@1@$0EA
(unsigned char ?1??get_allo
cator::H::stlsoft::HV?$malloc_allocator::lsoft::auto_buffer<>::?1??get_allocator::s_allocator)
.\stlsoft.unittest.9.obj(stlsoft.unittest.9)  Offset 024B7H Record
Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
?s_allocator@?1??get_allocator@?$auto_buffer@stlsoft@HV?$new_allocator@stlsoft@H@1@$0BA@@stlsoft@@SAAAV?$new_allocator
@stlsoft@H@3@XZ23@4V43@A

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:dba5sv$ttq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I get the following when trying to link one of the STLSoft unit-test programs.
>
> I'm guessing that there aren't enough symbols used to discriminate between records, but it's all conjecture.

All it means is that the same symbol is defined in multiple .obj files.

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:dbbefm$1te2$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:dba5sv$ttq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> I get the following when trying to link one of the STLSoft
>> unit-test
>> programs.
>>
>> I'm guessing that there aren't enough symbols used to
>> discriminate
>> between records, but it's all conjecture.
>
> All it means is that the same symbol is defined in multiple .obj files.

Well, duh! Of course that's what it means. That's obviously not where the problem lies.

What I'm saying is that it's wrong, or to be more precise: either the linker is correctly detecting that the compiler is making multiple instances of something for which there should only be one, or that the linker is not correctly coallescing multiple definitions into one, as dictated by the language inlining rules. And the confidence with which I say this, and made the original post, over and above the fact that I'm doing something C++-sensible is that about 16 other compilers compile and link an executable from the same sources successfully.

Anyway, I've found a workaround now. Just one more #ifdef STLSOFT_COMPILER_IS_DMC ... ;-(

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:dbcb09$2gur$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> What I'm saying is that it's wrong, or to be more precise: either the linker is correctly detecting that the compiler is making multiple instances of something for which there should only be one, or that the linker is not correctly coallescing multiple definitions into one, as dictated by the language inlining rules. And the confidence with which I say this, and made the original post, over and above the fact that I'm doing something C++-sensible is that about 16 other compilers compile and link an executable from the same sources successfully.
>
> Anyway, I've found a workaround now. Just one more #ifdef STLSOFT_COMPILER_IS_DMC ... ;-(

If you can isolate it down to a small test case, I can take a whack at it.