Hello all

I tried to link libmodplug.so but get this error:

/usr/lib/libmodplug.so: undefined reference to `operator new[](unsigned int)'
/usr/lib/libmodplug.so: undefined reference to `operator delete(void*)' /usr/lib/libmodplug.so: undefined reference to `operator delete[](void*)' /usr/lib/libmodplug.so: undefined reference to `operator new(unsigned int)'

do I have to link another library also (something like libstd) or is there a way that I can define those function in my application? Im a littlebit confused about "operator"

greets
Ivo

I'd guess this library is exporting (and importing) in C++ symbols and thus can't be linked with FPC?

-Flávio

Op Sat, 23 Sep 2006, schreef Flávio Etrusco:

I'd guess this library is exporting (and importing) in C++ symbols and thus can't be linked with FPC?

Linking is always possible, wether you can call it is another matter. I don't know with library you need, but it might be libstdc++.

Daniël

i'm guessing (i could be wrong) that you need to link in libstdc++

I found my own solution (and that's working for linux here). But I dont know if it's a bad idea to do it. linking libstdc++ leads to other problems here, so I cant do that. Flawless and me have got a unit that implements some parts of stdlibc++, so I took the functions above from this lib.

function cppNew(s: cint): pointer; cdecl; public; alias : '_Znaj'; alias
: '_Znwj';
begin
  GetMem(Result, s);
end;
procedure cppDelete(p: pointer); cdecl; public; alias : '_ZdlPv'; alias
: '_ZdaPv';
begin
  FreeMem(p);
end;

now it compiles and works without any problems. What do you think? dangerous? crazy? If you think it's a good idea, I would like to add a unti called fpcstdcpp or something like that. This unit defines other things also, like fdiv, etc...

-Ivo Steinmann

I don't think so. Since every call to new _must_ be matched by a call to delete, we can be sure that there are no special functions for clearing a pointer.

If you think it's a good idea, I would like to add a unti called fpcstdcpp or something like that. This unit defines other things also, like fdiv, etc...

I like it, that's why I made the original unit :D

Really, many things can compile with just a few simple functions (like those you used here).

Maybe we could use littlelibcpp.pas as a base for fpstdcpp.pas?

Ivo Steinmann wrote

now it compiles and works without any problems. What do you think? dangerous? crazy? If you think it's a good idea, I would like to add a

There is no difference on the ABI level of 'new' and 'new[]' ?

Micha

I think the reason there are two different operators, is because the names are mangled differently for consistency (because it _could_ very well have been important if it's the array version or not)

Of course, this makes it possible to try and use an array-optimized memory allocator for the []-cases.