From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-55950-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5714 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2014 13:55:16 -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 5703 invoked by uid 89); 7 Oct 2014 13:55:16 -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-f170.google.com
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f170.google.com) (209.85.212.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:55:15 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hi2so9791726wib.3        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 06:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.198.203 with SMTP id je11mr27612012wic.69.1412690111670;        Tue, 07 Oct 2014 06:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.5.5] (156-149.dsl.iskon.hr. [89.164.156.149])        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cz3sm20852546wjb.23.2014.10.07.06.55.10        for <multiple recipients>        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);        Tue, 07 Oct 2014 06:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5433F09E.8090209@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:55:00 -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: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>,  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>	<5433B232.6070401@gmail.com> <CAH6eHdRYTd77yqFWg2mWOFFdwNp9+8L087VNnBWnnz3zCkUn_w@mail.gmail.com> <5433D2D3.4040300@gmail.com> <5433DBB1.2040504@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5433DBB1.2040504@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2

On 2014-10-07 14:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
 > Provide an out-of-class definition.

I've defined other functions (operator>> and operator<<) outside the 
class, but others are tiny, easily inlinable functions for which it 
seems silly to do so.

 > Please read 
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition
 > more carefully, all the way to the end of that section. Also try
 > reading the http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq2.html#in-class page it
 > links to.

I have read both, as well as
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Static-Definitions.html

The static variables *are* defined (not just declared) - inside the 
class body. The issue was that I was passing them by reference to 
function xorshift_engine::shift, which has been fixed.

But anyway...

On 2014-10-07 14:25, Andrew Haley wrote:
> But really, we are well outside the scope of gcc-help now.

Agreed.