From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-371258-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10762 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2011 16:58:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 10751 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2011 16:58:30 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:58:08 +0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/50785] [C++0x] static constexpr double undefined reference
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:58:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-50785-4-g0BOkTkTtX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-50785-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50785-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg02002.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785

--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-19 16:58:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> it will be possible to add better waring/error in this case?

Not easily, the error you get is from the linker.  This has been discussed MANY
times in other bugzilla reports, search for PRs with status=RESOLVED and the
words "static const undefined reference"

> maybe some info when you try take ref from const static objects?

No, because there is nothing wrong with doing that as long as you have a
definition for the member.  I do not want the compiler to complain when I write
correct code just to remind people who write incorrect code not to forget
something.