(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `__vector_11′

I’ve gotten the impression that the `__vector_11′ has been added in an attempt to prevent a future bug with `__vector_4′ from showing up.

Ive seen this before, but it doesnt appear to be a bug. Ive a feeling that the compiler hasn’t been able to find `__vector_11` because the compiler doesnt see __vector_4, and hence doesn’t know to use __vector_4.

It should be noted that the compiler does not see __vector_4.

It seems like this is some kind of bug in the __vector_16__. Ive heard of a change to the __vector_16__ to allow for a more flexible use.

If you’re looking for a way to prevent the bug from appearing, take a look at __vector_4. It is not a bug in __vector_4. It’s a bug in __vector_16__.__vector_16__ is a variable that represents an array. It’s a variable that is a pointer to an array that is not a vector.

On that note, its a good thing, because if you want a reference to an array, you can get a reference to the actual array with the __malloc function. That said, using an array as a pointer is a bad idea. This is because you can accidentally overwrite the array. The best way to do this is to use a vector. Because a vector is a type of array, you can store any data into the vector.

Using a vector as a pointer to an array is a problem because it can cause all sorts of problems. The most obvious one is that you can end up deleting or otherwise modifying elements in the array and you can also cause random crashes and system instability. One of the best-documented ways to fix this is to create a new vector for each array. However, this is a bit more work and doesn’t give you any extra benefits.

So, if you’re going to store data in a vector, you should actually create an array of vectors, one vector for each array. Because you can’t just store data in a vector… and you’re really doing it wrong. For instance, if you have a vector of strings, you will end up using the string *s = str; for each element in the vector.

So, vector of vectors.