This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Force generation of an uncalled method?

From: Brian Dessent <brian at dessent dot net>
To: stepleton at gmail dot com
Cc: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:25:03 -0800
Subject: Re: Force generation of an uncalled method?
References: <alpine.OSX.1.00.0802221414340.2164@CMU-211767.WV.CC.CMU.EDU> <47BF336F.C22A2B9E@dessent.net> <alpine.OSX.1.00.0802221550220.2164@CMU-211767.WV.CC.CMU.EDU>
Reply-to: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org

stepleton@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks, Brian, this is it! For now I am getting by placing something like
> "if(false) debugMethod();" into the constructor. If there is a convention
> for this sort of thing, I'd be happy to know about it.

You should be able to explicitly instantiate it as e.g. "template class
Foo<int>;" which if I understand correctly would tell g++ to compile and
emit bodies for all non-inline methods of Foo<int> at that point.

Brian

References:
- Force generation of an uncalled method?
  - From: stepleton
- Re: Force generation of an uncalled method?
  - From: Brian Dessent
- Re: Force generation of an uncalled method?
  - From: stepleton

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]