* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-07-01 17:31 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2003-07-02 16:43 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu @ 2003-07-01 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2003-07-01 17:31 -------
It does reject with "gcc -S pr11393.cc -pedantic-errors" in the mainline (20030701) and has done
since at least 2.95.3.
I think this is the right thing to do is to warn about with -pedantic.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-07-01 17:31 ` [Bug c++/11393] " pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
@ 2003-07-02 16:43 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-07-02 16:47 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-07-02 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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. If I wanted GNU extensions I wouldn't be
using -std.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-07-01 17:31 ` [Bug c++/11393] " pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2003-07-02 16:43 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-07-02 16:47 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2003-07-02 17:06 ` rearnsha at arm dot com
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu @ 2003-07-02 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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 pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2003-07-02 16:47 -------
Subject: Re: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
From <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html>:
To select this standard in GCC, use one of the options -ansi, -std=c89
or -std=iso9899:1990; to obtain all the diagnostics required by the
standard, you should also specify -pedantic (or -pedantic-errors if you
want them to be errors rather than warnings). See Options Controlling
C Dialect
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 12:43 US/Eastern, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu
dot org wrote:
> 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. If I wanted GNU extensions I wouldn't be
> using -std.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-02 16:47 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
@ 2003-07-02 17:06 ` rearnsha at arm dot com
2003-07-02 23:28 ` jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at arm dot com @ 2003-07-02 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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 arm dot com 2003-07-02 17:06 -------
Subject: Re: Initializer of static const float class
member is not legal in c++98
> 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 pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2003-07-02 16:47 -------
> Subject: Re: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
>
> From <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html>:
> To select this standard in GCC, use one of the options -ansi, -std=c89
> or -std=iso9899:1990; to obtain all the diagnostics required by the
> standard, you should also specify -pedantic (or -pedantic-errors if you
> want them to be errors rather than warnings). See Options Controlling
> C Dialect
>
Well, for starters C++ isn't a C dialect. For seconds, it really doesn't
make sense to me that, given I can type
-std=gnu89
to get GNU extensions,
-std=c89
doesn't give me (at the very least) warnings about GNU extensions. Why
have the option at all?
We should just make the compiler use gnu89 (or gnu99, or whatever) as the
default, and have -std=c89 *mean* c89 code not something else.
Even more perverse is that
-std=gnu89 -pedantic
gives me warnings about ISO-isms.
R.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-02 17:06 ` rearnsha at arm dot com
@ 2003-07-02 23:28 ` jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk
2003-07-04 11:10 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2003-07-02 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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 jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk 2003-07-02 23:28 -------
Subject: Re: Initializer of static const float class member
is not legal in c++98
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, rearnsha at arm dot com wrote:
> to get GNU extensions,
>
> -std=c89
>
> doesn't give me (at the very least) warnings about GNU extensions. Why
> have the option at all?
To accept all code the standard requires us to accept, with the standard
semantics (e.g., enabling trigraphs).
> We should just make the compiler use gnu89 (or gnu99, or whatever) as the
> default, and have -std=c89 *mean* c89 code not something else.
You mean have the -std options imply -pedantic? I think that would be
reasonable, to reduce the length of the invocation required for a standard
mode. (And if we *don't* allow -ansi -no-pedantic to turn the warnings
off again then this would also fix or at least hide a few bugs where
standard code is only accepted with -pedantic.)
> Even more perverse is that
>
> -std=gnu89 -pedantic
>
> gives me warnings about ISO-isms.
That is the combination used (implicitly) in GCC bootstrap, with -pedantic
to warn about nonportable usages in GCC but without needing to mess with
feature test macros (which -std=c89 would imply, since it also puts the
headers into standards mode).
The manual explains the concept of "base standard" behind the warnings in
such cases.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-02 23:28 ` jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2003-07-04 11:10 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2003-07-04 11:10 ` [Bug c++/11393] New: " Gabriel Dos Reis
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2003-07-04 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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 11:10 -------
Subject: Re: New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
"rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.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
|
| Summary: Initializer of static const float class member is not
| legal in c++98
| Product: gcc
| Version: 3.4
| Status: UNCONFIRMED
| Keywords: accepts-invalid
| Severity: normal
| Priority: P2
| Component: c++
| AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
| ReportedBy: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
| CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
| GCC build triplet: any
|
| The following code is not legal in c++ 98 (9.4.2 par 4) and should generate a
| diagnostic. As this is probably a gnu extension, it should probably only do
| this when -std=c++98.
I think that was even removed in 3.4, so we should definitely error
(or pedwarn) that construct.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-04 11:10 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2003-07-04 11:10 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2003-07-04 11:33 ` [Bug c++/11393] " gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2003-07-04 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugzilla; +Cc: gcc-bugs
"rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.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
|
| Summary: Initializer of static const float class member is not
| legal in c++98
| Product: gcc
| Version: 3.4
| Status: UNCONFIRMED
| Keywords: accepts-invalid
| Severity: normal
| Priority: P2
| Component: c++
| AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
| ReportedBy: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
| CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
| GCC build triplet: any
|
| The following code is not legal in c++ 98 (9.4.2 par 4) and should generate a
| diagnostic. As this is probably a gnu extension, it should probably only do
| this when -std=c++98.
I think that was even removed in 3.4, so we should definitely error
(or pedwarn) that construct.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-04 11:10 ` [Bug c++/11393] New: " Gabriel Dos Reis
@ 2003-07-04 11:33 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2003-07-04 11:33 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2003-07-04 11:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
"pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| It does reject with "gcc -S pr11393.cc -pedantic-errors" in the mainline (20030701) and has done
| since at least 2.95.3.
that is because, we actively removed that undocumented extension from
mainline.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-04 11:33 ` [Bug c++/11393] " gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2003-07-04 11:33 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2003-07-04 11:35 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2003-07-04 11:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-04 11:33 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2003-07-04 11:35 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2003-07-07 10:25 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2003-07-04 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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 11:35 -------
Subject: Re: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
"jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| The manual explains the concept of "base standard" behind the warnings in
| such cases.
The manual explains the "logic" behing those things, but the logic
behind those things is broken.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-04 11:35 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2003-07-07 10:25 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-07-07 10:25 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-07-07 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|CLOSED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |
------- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-07 10:25 -------
It doesn't seem appropriate that this bug should be closed without comment from
one of the C++ front-end maintainers.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-07 10:25 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-07-07 10:25 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-07-07 23:23 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-07-07 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
------- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-07 10:25 -------
It doesn't seem appropriate that this bug should be closed without comment from
one of the C++ front-end maintainers.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-07 10:25 ` rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-07-07 23:23 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2003-08-11 15:32 ` lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2003-07-07 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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 bangerth at dealii dot org 2003-07-07 23:23 -------
I certainly concur. The interaction of the flags -std, -ansi, -pedantic is
not at all clear to me, and it would be good if either their relative
meaning if one of the other flags is given, is explained in detail, or
if they are meant to represent orthogonal concepts. One of the questions
here is: does -std=XX define a minimal or a maximal set of things gcc
has to support, as viewed in the presence of gcc extensions?
W.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2003-07-07 23:23 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2003-08-11 15:32 ` lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org
2003-08-23 0:39 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-08-11 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2003-08-11 15:32:40
date| |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2003-08-11 15:32 ` lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2003-08-23 0:39 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
2004-11-09 23:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi at yahoo dot com @ 2003-08-23 0:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
dhazeghi at yahoo dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|3.4 |---
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2003-08-23 0:39 ` dhazeghi at yahoo dot com
@ 2004-11-09 23:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-18 17:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-11-09 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-09 23:09 -------
*** Bug 18409 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rnewman at compubrite dot
| |com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11393
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-09 23:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-04-18 17:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-18 17:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-10 17:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-04-18 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-18 17:32 -------
*** Bug 21089 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |matz at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11393
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2005-04-18 17:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-04-18 17:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-10 17:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-04-18 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-18 17:38 -------
This is a documented deprecated feature:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Deprecated-Features.html#Deprecated-Features
G++ allows static data members of const floating-point type to be declared with an initializer in a class
definition. The standard only allows initializers for static members of const integral types and const
enumeration types so this extension has been deprecated and will be removed from a future version.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11393
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
2003-07-01 17:25 [Bug c++/11393] New: Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98 rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2005-04-18 17:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-10 17:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-10 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10 17:44 -------
*** Bug 21499 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |papadopo at shfj dot cea dot
| |fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11393
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread