From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-393909-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19477 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2012 21:26:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 19459 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2012 21:26:43 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
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; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:26:29 +0000
From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/53627] perfect forwarding for static int member
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:26:00 -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: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
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-53627-4-WuEC87A0d8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53627-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53627-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: 2012-06/txt/msg00536.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53627

--- Comment #5 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot =
com> 2012-06-10 21:26:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > This is exactly:=20
> >=20
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definit=
ion
>=20
> I agree. But let me just add that the first of the examples provided there
> ("return argc > 1 ? S::a : S::b;") should no longer me listed (or be modi=
fied),
> because that was fixed with C++11 due to=20
>=20
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#712
>=20
> This situation should no longer require a definition for S::a or S::b.

I just recognize that this example *does* require a definition for S::a and
S::b in C++11 mode. I open a new issue for this.