http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49311
--- Comment #5 from Hartmut Schirmer <hartmut.schirmer at arcormail dot de> 2011-06-08 05:25:44 UTC --- > I think there are several hundred already. Oh, this list was helpful, thanks! > Not worth marking them as duplicate, > it just further upsets people receiving notifications for a problem that has > no > solution. Looking at http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#in-class I found this "You can take the address of a static member if (and only if) it has an out-of-class definition" Of course this is not a promise you don't need an out-of-class definition if you don't take the address. Gcc uses the assumption it can take the address in -O0 mode, but is this assumption justified? It's at least surprising. class A { public: static const unsigned first = 1; enum { second = 2 }; }; should behave similar in all cases address of first isn't taken.
