From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11929 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2005 17:47:59 -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 11803 invoked by uid 48); 18 Apr 2005 17:47:54 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050418174754.11802.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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++ front-end does not "inline" the static const double members X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg02440.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-18 17:47 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > 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? Oh, in that case I will reopen the bug with a different summary. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Keywords| |missed-optimization Resolution|DUPLICATE | Summary|c++ accepts invalid static |C++ front-end does not |const double members with |"inline" the static const |initializer |double members http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21089