> Compilers are allowed to optimize static const integral members, in the
> sense that their values may be used directly.
Right. I'm reporting that
1) gcc's behavior changed in this regard in 2.96 and 3.00 from 2.95 and
previous, and
2) gcc sometimes uses these values directly without defini
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:45:40PM -0600, James E Jurach Jr. wrote:
> I understood from nm(1) output that, at least in the past, g++ did not
> create a symbol for these int's, but rather performed some kind of inline
> optimization.
Compilers are allowed to optimize static const integral members,
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 05:06:31PM -0600, James Jurach wrote:
> > When class members declared as static const int appear in conditional
> > expressions, they are not properly optimized out. The compiler treats them
> > as undefined variables, rather than integer literals.
>
> That's because they
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 05:06:31PM -0600, James Jurach wrote:
> When class members declared as static const int appear in conditional
> expressions, they are not properly optimized out. The compiler treats them
> as undefined variables, rather than integer literals.
That's because they /are/ unde
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:James Jurach
>Organization: FundsXpress
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: static const int optimization fails in conditional expressions
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Category: c++
>Class: sw-bug
>Release: 3.0.3 20011209 (D
Package: gcc
Version: 2:2.95.4-8
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I realize this is probably implemented easily, but a warning about
asserts with obvious side effects would be nice. For example:
assert(ptr = malloc(...)) /* programmer didn't understa
> In my opinion, tfunc_t is a pointer to function, not reference. This
> is because the function name (without a context) is a pointer to
> that function, not a reference. If I am wrong, please, let me know.
You are wrong. tfunc_t is neither of type "pointer to function" nor of
type "reference to
Ugh, sorry for late answer. I was ill and thinked about this subject.
"Martin v. Loewis" wrote:
> > Please answer somebody wether it is a bug and wether I should submit it to
> > GNATS.
>
> I believe this is not a bug, because there are no const-qualified
> function types in C++.
>
> If you don'
8 matches
Mail list logo
