public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Peter A. Buhr" <pabuhr@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, Subject: Re: c++/9881: Incorrect address calculation for static class member Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:46:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20030227214600.3488.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw) The following reply was made to PR c++/9881; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Peter A. Buhr" <pabuhr@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca> To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: asharji@uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: c++/9881: Incorrect address calculation for static class member Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:39:14 -0500 (EST) Synopsis: Incorrect address calculation for static class member State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Thu Feb 27 18:22:41 2003 State-Changed-Why: In this code, foo f; // print output double *module::b = &(((bar *)&module::storage)->p); double module::storage = 0.0; The constructor of foo is run before module::b is initialized. If you change this order, the output is as you expect. W. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9881 Your response is incorrect. First, the program generates the correct result with gcc3.2. If you run the example with both gcc3.2 and gcc3.3, you will see that the output is different. Hence, one can conclude that either gcc3.2 or gcc3.3 is wrong. Second, when the example program is run with the SUN compiler, it generates the same output as for gcc3.2, indicating that the problem is probably in gcc3.3. Third, the position of the constructor has nothing to do with the assignment to a static variable. The expression to initialize the static variable "module::b" *MUST* be evaluated at compiler time. All static variables *MUST* be initialized before any constructor is run because a constructor can refer to these variables. Finally, your suggestion is not even a work-around, because the original problem occurred in separate compilation units, so the notion of moving the constructor in this case does not apply. It is slightly disconcerting that you should close this bug report without at least checking with the people that reported the problem.
next reply other threads:[~2003-02-27 21:46 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2003-02-27 21:46 Peter A. Buhr [this message] -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2003-03-02 22:16 Wolfgang Bangerth 2003-02-28 13:56 Peter A. Buhr 2003-02-27 23:16 Wolfgang Bangerth 2003-02-27 22:56 Peter A. Buhr 2003-02-27 22:06 Wolfgang Bangerth 2003-02-27 21:40 bangerth 2003-02-27 18:22 bangerth 2003-02-27 18:06 asharji
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20030227214600.3488.qmail@sources.redhat.com \ --to=pabuhr@plg2.math.uwaterloo.ca \ --cc=gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=nobody@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).