------- Comment #2 from dpovey at gmail dot com 2010-06-15 22:19 ------- I don't agree with you that this is not a bug, although I do agree that I could have coded it differently.
Look at http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/comphelp/v8v101/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.xlcpp8a.doc/language/ref/explicit_specialization.htm the section on "Explicit specialization of members of class templates". You are right, my syntax was an explicit specialization, and that was pointless and I could have done it a different way, but I believe what I wrote still counts as a definition of the variable-- what else could the syntax possibly mean? I.e. the line: template<> const int MyTraits<int>::kValue; You say this is an explicit specialization; fine, but it is an explicit specialization of the *definition* of the variable. You can't *declare* a class member outside of the class itself, and I'm not specializing the class itself. So either that line needs to be rejected by the compiler, or it needs to work as I intended-- what other possible meaning could it have than the one I intended? The C++ standard doesn't seem to mention whether or not you are allowed to explicitly specialize static const variables that have been defined inside the class, and it does seem a bit pointless to do so, but I think it should either compile or issue an error or warning. -- dpovey at gmail dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44548
