--- Comment #7 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-05-12 17:53
---
Subject: Re: fail to link to static const double
> --- Comment #6 from dennis0yang at gmail dot com 2007-05-12 17:19 ---
> Subject: Re: fail to link to static const double
>
> I understand perfectly wel
--- Comment #6 from dennis0yang at gmail dot com 2007-05-12 17:19 ---
Subject: Re: fail to link to static const double
I understand perfectly well everything you said. But I think you miss
the point of this bug report.
This is not about the c++ standard in terms of what should and sho
--- Comment #5 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-05-12 16:53
---
Subject: Re: fail to link to static const double
> --- Comment #3 from dennis0yang at gmail dot com 2007-05-12 09:29 ---
> Subject: Re: fail to link to static const double
>
> I understand that the stan
--- Comment #4 from dennis0yang at gmail dot com 2007-05-12 09:33 ---
Subject: Re: fail to link to static const double
I just checked out the bug report you mentioned, are you sure they are
the same? When I change "static const double" to "static const int", the
code compiles without
--- Comment #3 from dennis0yang at gmail dot com 2007-05-12 09:29 ---
Subject: Re: fail to link to static const double
I understand that the standard only specifies that static const for
integral type can be assigned within the class. My point is that if gcc
decides to allow the exte
--- Comment #2 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-05-12 09:15 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 30745 ***
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-05-12 09:06
---
You need to define Base::x out of class in some translation unit, the in-class
declaration alone isn't enough, though sometimes the compiler will elide the
reference to it if its value is known (optimization).
con
