From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20979 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2003 17:06:03 -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 20855 invoked by uid 71); 15 Mar 2003 17:06:02 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030315170602.20850.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/10086: static const int unresolved in ? : construct Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00999.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10086; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Chris Kappler Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, Subject: Re: c++/10086: static const int unresolved in ? : construct Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:03:22 -0600 (CST) > I do not agree. That doesn't make it right. The standard says that you need to have definitions of static variables like const int Base::A; and it allows the compiler to make use of these variables without using the provided constant initializers. Just because it uses them in one context and not in another doesn't mean you should rely on that. W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/