What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 130 Stack Exchange communities.

This question already has an answer here:

I'm getting the above error, but this makes absolutely no sense to me.

  • Considering my large site experience, I'm pretty sure that I can at least grasp the basics.
  • You could mention what is wrong with the question.

enter image description here

How am I going to fix it if you don't tell me what's wrong with it?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Shadow Wizard, Diago, Bart, Mat, kiamlaluno Apr 21 '13 at 12:16

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

4  
@ShaWizDowArd: That question and answer do not address what to do when the system does not tell you what the error is. –  DeadMG Apr 21 '13 at 10:09
3  
I guess the problem is it's length. Also, could use a better title. FYI, the quality filter was turned up a notch recently. –  Yannis Apr 21 '13 at 10:35
1  
@DeadMG The "no info" is by design afaik. –  Bart Apr 21 '13 at 10:37
13  
@DeadMG: That is on purpose. You have an awfully short question there, are you sure you cannot reword that a little? Point to the ABI yuo did find? Explain why you need the newer ABI (there could be a work-around for your specific problem)? Etc. –  Martijn Pieters Apr 21 '13 at 10:37
    
On the "no reason provided" front, maybe we could just add a link to the canonical duplicate mentioned by Shadow Wizard? It would help any user who cares enough to follow it. –  Frédéric Hamidi Apr 21 '13 at 10:40
    
I'm just making guesses, but some possible triggers are: short length, only a single paragraph, the title contains multiple tags, also the question contains no code. –  hammar Apr 21 '13 at 10:59
    
@MartijnPieters: Those details are irrelevant. Either there is a C++11 Itanium ABI or there is not. As for not telling me what's wrong, I'm glad that circlejerking over secrecy is something the devs enjoy, but meanwhile, I'd like to get on and post my question now. But I can't since I don't know what the problem is. –  DeadMG Apr 21 '13 at 11:08
6  
@DeadMG: You do know what the problem is. Your post doesn't meet the quality standards. –  Martijn Pieters Apr 21 '13 at 11:12
    
@MartijnPieters: That is far too vague to be of any practical use. What do you want me to do, spam it full of irrelevant details? I could specify my whole life story in both title and body if you'd like. –  DeadMG Apr 21 '13 at 11:22
    
@DeadMG: an extra paragraph with a single sentence containing a single example of why the ABI needs updating for C++11 is very likely more than enough to enable you to post, and actually gives a rationale for your asking this. Surely you have such examples. –  Mat Apr 21 '13 at 12:07
    
@Mat: I do. But they're irrelevant as to the situation of whether or not the updated ABI exists and whether anyone on SO viewing my question will know of it if it does. –  DeadMG Apr 21 '13 at 17:10
    
They're not irrelevant as to why you're asking whether that standard has been updated/revised. Consider it as educating the masses too - not everyone is familiar with why such an update would be necessary (I wasn't until I searched for said update). Motivating your question makes it potentially more interesting to more people who might not have been aware there was an issue at all. –  Mat Apr 21 '13 at 17:20
2  
I've tweaked the threshold a bit, and this would make it through now. Just a FYI for next time: HTML comments get stripped before the check, so adding lots of wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo‌​ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooords in comments won't help any. –  Shog9 Apr 22 '13 at 3:16

1 Answer 1

Well, the question is rather short. Almost a search request. Does the one you've found lack something essential other than not being up to the current standard? [This is rhetorical.]

share|improve this answer
3  
Not being up to the current Standard is lacking something essential. –  DeadMG Apr 21 '13 at 11:08
    
Add that to the question. ... "rhetorical". –  luser droog Apr 21 '13 at 16:37
    
Why I need an updated version is irrelevant as to whether or not it exists and whether or not anyone knows of it. –  DeadMG Apr 21 '13 at 17:11
3  
You're missing the point. ... Adding this information would improve the quality of the question. ... Changing my mind isn't going to change anything. So it's really pointless to argue with me. This was just a suggestion on something to add which would improve the quality of the question. –  luser droog Apr 21 '13 at 17:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .