From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-55942-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11364 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2014 09:16:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11354 invoked by uid 89); 7 Oct 2014 09:16:26 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-wi0-f169.google.com
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f169.google.com) (209.85.212.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:16:24 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id cc10so9103654wib.2        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 02:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.181.13.143 with SMTP id ey15mr2945788wid.4.1412673381978;        Tue, 07 Oct 2014 02:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.5.5] (156-149.dsl.iskon.hr. [89.164.156.149])        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wk5sm19982691wjb.12.2014.10.07.02.16.20        for <multiple recipients>        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);        Tue, 07 Oct 2014 02:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5433AF43.9070102@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:16:00 -0000
From: Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
CC: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: A possible bug
References: <54337368.4070407@gmail.com> <CAH6eHdRAzuo-dDSft17N04nmw=Ne2ydhp1_bxzReric2ce3j2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH6eHdRAzuo-dDSft17N04nmw=Ne2ydhp1_bxzReric2ce3j2A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2

On 2014-10-07 10:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> It's probably simply
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition

Thanks for the reply.

What you propose makes sense. At least, it definitely explains why the 
error appears only without compiler optimisation (that was driving me 
insane).

However, the only functions which access those static constexpr 
variables are member functions of the very class in which those 
variables are defined (or actually, there is only one function, because 
only one overload of xorshift_engine::xorshiftgen (in file xorshift.h) 
will be enabled at compile-time, depending on the class templete 
parameters). As far as I can see, the problem should happen only if 
static const(expr) variables are accessed outside the class/struct body.

Besides, this doesn't explain why the error happens for shift_2 and 
shift_3 but not for shift_1 (keep in mind - function 
xorshift_engine::xorshiftgen always accesses each of these three static 
constexpr variables, in order).