From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7406 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2003 11:33:55 -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 7397 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2003 11:33:54 -0000 Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030704113354.7393.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" 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/msg00345.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 gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2003-07-04 11:33 ------- Subject: Re: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 "rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org" writes: | 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. Yes, it is a bug. -- Gaby