From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29591 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2002 15:56:09 -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 29576 invoked by uid 71); 3 Dec 2002 15:56:08 -0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021203155608.29575.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/8778: ICE on illegal initialization of non-integral static in-class constant Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/8778; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Gabriel Dos Reis Cc: Volker Reichelt , , , Subject: Re: c++/8778: ICE on illegal initialization of non-integral static in-class constant Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:47:50 -0600 (CST) Gaby, Volker, let's settle this matter: > | > ------------------------snip here---------------------- > | > template struct A > | > { > | > static const int i[] = { 1, 2 }; // works > | > }; > > If this compiles with GCC then that is a compiler bug. The program > construct is invalid. > > [...] > > | So maybe we can meet in the middle: "The code is illegal based on the C++ > | standard, but is accepted as a gcc extension"? > > I doubt that is an extension. I just filed report PR 8797 stating that the above syntax should not be accepted, or alternatively that the "extension" should be documented in the manual. I guess I lean towards the first alternative. Note also that using -pedantic yields a _warning_, not an error on the code above, so I guess having a separate report is justified. Regards Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth