From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8923 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2002 23:06:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8908 invoked by uid 71); 22 Oct 2002 23:06:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021022230601.8907.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/95: No implicit instantiation of static data member templates on HPUX Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00848.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/95; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: law@redhat.com, , Cc: Subject: Re: c++/95: No implicit instantiation of static data member templates on HPUX Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:04:49 -0500 (CDT) c++/95 is about the following: ----------------------------------------- template class X { static int *i; }; class Y {}; int *X::i; // = 0; ----------------------------------------- With gcc2.95, this puts the static variable into different segments, depending on whether we have the initialization I commented out, or not. On Linux, I get either 00000004 C _t1X1Z1Y.i # without initialization 00000000 D _t1X1Z1Y.i # with initialization This difference has gone with present CVS and 3.2. I always get 00000000 B _ZN1XI1YE1iE Jeff, this report is against HPUX which I cannot test, but you are the maintainer of this port. Can you test the above test case with/without the initializer, and if you the symbol is defined in both cases, can you please close this report? Thanks Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth