From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20764 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 16:43:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20752 invoked by uid 48); 2 Jul 2003 16:43:49 -0000 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030702164349.20751.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030701172459.11393.rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20030701172459.11393.rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11393 ------- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-02 16:43 ------- So why doesn't -std=c++98 generate such a warning. I still consider failure to do that a bug. If I wanted GNU extensions I wouldn't be using -std.