From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4897 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2005 17:40:16 -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 4854 invoked by uid 48); 18 Apr 2005 17:40:09 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050418174009.4853.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "matz at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050418172616.21089.matz@suse.de> References: <20050418172616.21089.matz@suse.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/21089] c++ accepts invalid static const double members with initializer X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg02439.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From matz at suse dot de 2005-04-18 17:40 ------- Indeed. Okay, but then this really is an optimization regression compared to gcc 3.3.x which compiled this just fine. As it's only rejected with -pedantic (and I think it's a sensible extension), shouldn't we make sure that we can compile this comparatively simple source, i.e. propagate the constant correctly everywhere? I'm not sure what to do, reopening with a new subject, or creating a new bug? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21089