On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0800, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
> Thanks Andrew. Yes, standard actually mentions this that I missed.
It's also doc'd here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Static-Definitions.html#Static-Definitions
jon
Thanks Andrew. Yes, standard actually mentions this that I missed.
- fariborz
On Mar 11, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mar 11, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
So, is g++ correct in rejecting this seemingly good user code?
Yes you need a place to store the data.
So for an ex
On Mar 11, 2005, at 2:16 PM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
So, is g++ correct in rejecting this seemingly good user code?
Yes you need a place to store the data.
So for an example in your original testcase, you need:
const int Foo::foo;
Which fixes the problem and yes 9.4.2 explains this (I cannot find
Section 9.4.2 of c++ standard "Static data members" does not directly
address this issue. But there is
a dejagnu c++ test case which explicitly disallows (by issuing a
link-time error) taking address of a static
const data member. Test case is const2.C.
This question has come up because, g++-4.
