--- Comment #4 from christian dot heinlein at uni-ulm dot de 2006-10-30
11:43 ---
*** Bug 29647 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29645
--- Comment #1 from christian dot heinlein at uni-ulm dot de 2006-10-30
11:43 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 29645 ***
--
christian dot heinlein at uni-ulm dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from christian dot heinlein at uni-ulm dot de 2006-10-30
11:41 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 29645 ***
--
christian dot heinlein at uni-ulm dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from christian dot heinlein at uni-ulm dot de 2006-10-30
11:41 ---
*** Bug 29646 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29645
--- Comment #2 from christian dot heinlein at uni-ulm dot de 2006-10-30
11:38 ---
No! A "static const int" member which is only used as a compile time constant
does not need a definition, if I understand the C++ standard correctly.
(And in most cases, the code produced by GC
onst int members
Product: gcc
Version: 3.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: christian dot heinlein at uni-ulm dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29647
onst int members
Product: gcc
Version: 3.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: christian dot heinlein at uni-ulm dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29646
