http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
--- Comment #2 from michal.tlk at gmail dot com 2011-02-23 20:45:23 UTC --- Yep a warning stating the similarity of a static member function variable to its counterpart as a static member would be appreciated...maybe when pedantic option is going to be used. The issue is real, just consider how the static members/attributes need to be defined and how instead the static member function variables do not. Thanks. Hai ragione Carlo, di certo non era il posto giusto per mettere tale notifica...un warning potrebbe essere d aiuto...vi ringrazierei se potreste valutarne l importanza. la semantica del c++ porta a sottovalutare la staticita delle variabili. Ad esempio potrebbe essere introddo un warning che notifichi l uguaglianza di una variabile statica di funzione membro alla sua analoga versione attributo di classe. Grazie per la risposta immediata. Buon lavoro. M. On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 5:59 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861 > > Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING > Last reconfirmed| |2011.02.23 16:59:33 > Ever Confirmed|0 |1 > > --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> > 2011-02-23 16:59:33 UTC --- > In any case, which action would you like to see (I'm not arguing the > technical > point): a new warning? For which specific testcase? Otherwise I'm afraid we > have to close the PR, this is not the proper place for discussing present > and/or future C++ language features. > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You reported the bug. >
