Re: c++/9927: Compiler requires definition of static member constants

Re: c++/9927: Compiler requires definition of static member constants

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/9927; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: Andrew Bell <acbell@iastate.edu>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c++/9927: Compiler requires definition of static member  constants
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:28:53 -0600 (CST)

 > >     The compiler is allowed to require that you provide a
 > >     definition of static member constants. I think, they are
 > >     even mandated. That's exactly what happens in your case.
 > >
 > >     You'll notice, however, that if you compile with optimization,
 > >     the compiler actually replaces references to these
 > >     variables by their values, which is probably what you
 > >     want.
 > 
 > Why, then, does the program compile and link if the "?:" construct is 
 > replaced with a "if (...) else (...)", even if the static const int's are 
 > not defined.
 
 By chance? The standard requires you to provide a definition of the 
 variable, so the compiler's free to make use of this requirement at its 
 own descretion. This might include certain contexts but not others.
 
 > I thought this was a special case for const int's.
 
 No, the special case is that you can give an initializer. But you can't 
 omit the definition.
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 

Re: c++/9927: Compiler requires definition of static member constants

[Andrew Bell]

The following reply was made to PR c++/9927; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Andrew Bell <acbell@iastate.edu>
To: bangerth@dealii.org, acbell@iastate.edu, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
        gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/9927: Compiler requires definition of static member
  constants
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 16:21:50 -0600

 At 10:01 PM 3/3/2003 +0000, you wrote:
 >Old Synopsis: Compiler doesn't inline static const int's used in ?:
 >New Synopsis: Compiler requires definition of static member constants
 >
 >State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 >State-Changed-By: bangerth
 >State-Changed-When: Mon Mar  3 22:01:45 2003
 >State-Changed-Why:
 >     The compiler is allowed to require that you provide a
 >     definition of static member constants. I think, they are
 >     even mandated. That's exactly what happens in your case.
 >
 >     You'll notice, however, that if you compile with optimization,
 >     the compiler actually replaces references to these
 >     variables by their values, which is probably what you
 >     want.
 
 Why, then, does the program compile and link if the "?:" construct is 
 replaced with a "if (...) else (...)", even if the static const int's are 
 not defined.  I thought this was a special case for const int's.
 
 
 -- Andrew Bell
 acbell@iastate.edu
         
 
 

Re: c++/9927: Compiler requires definition of static member constants

[bangerth]

Old Synopsis: Compiler doesn't inline static const int's used in ?:
New Synopsis: Compiler requires definition of static member constants

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Mon Mar  3 22:01:45 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    The compiler is allowed to require that you provide a
    definition of static member constants. I think, they are
    even mandated. That's exactly what happens in your case.
    
    You'll notice, however, that if you compile with optimization,
    the compiler actually replaces references to these
    variables by their values, which is probably what you
    want.
    
    W.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9927