At the beginning of last week's sprint, I picked up a task to reduce our warning count. One of the issues that I scratched my head over a couple minutes was a bunch of warnings with the text warning LNK4075: ignoring '/EDITANDCONTINUE' due to '/SomeOtherSetting' specification. As indicated by the LNK identifier, I knew the linker emitted this warning. However, in my perusal of the linker options, I couldn't find where the EDITANDCONTINUE setting existed. I even glanced through the other property pages looking for it.
Per my wont, I searched the web and eventually found it based on some oblique references on a StackOverflow question. The reason I had trouble finding it? It's a compiler option. And it's not called EDITANDCONTINUE.
This is controlled by the Debug Information Format setting on the C/C++ General page. If the option is Program Database and Edit and Continue, a.k.a. /ZI, then the output obj files apparently have a flag embedded in them that is incompatible with certain settings in the linker. Hence, the linker emits the warnings when it hits these conditions. It would have been nice for the message to have contained the /ZI option (which is what's used in the compiler) rather then than the EDITANDCONTINUE pseudo-option which isn't used anywhere, as near as I can tell.
To fix this warning, either change the linker options that are incompatible with the /ZI option or change the compiler option to something other than /ZI, such as /Zi. As of the time of this writing, the linker options incompatible with EDITANDCONTINUE include setting optimization to /OPT:REF or /OPT:ICF, turning off incremental compilation or setting one of /ORDER, /RELEASE or /FORCE. (These are from this MSDN page.)
Hope this helps someone.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
1 comment:
Comments are welcome but I do moderate them. This is simply to keep things wholesome for general family viewing. By default, comments will be accepted. The few things that will cause a comment to be rejected are:
1. It is too long even though it may be well-written and make interesting points. It's supposed to be a comment, not an essay. If you have that much to say, write a blog article and backlink to me.
2. It is nasty, impolite or uses language that is unacceptable.
3. It includes a a link that has a typo or is broken in some other way.
4. It should have been sent as an e-mail since it is clearly addressed to me and does not appear to have been intended for other readers.
5. It is blatantly self-promotional. This does not mean it can't be self-promotional at all, but it should add some value over an above the marketing.
Thanks for the insightful post. It was instructive and cogent in understanding as well as implementation.
ReplyDelete