http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scott at lurndal dot org
--- Comment #17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44673
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||derzuomaia at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
--- Comment #15 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 13:46 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
>
> However, it links in the if-else case.
The variable is not "used" in the [basic.def.odr] sense, because the
lvalue-to-rvalue conversion occurs immediately.
> I understand that ?: may be
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 10:53 ---
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > So is g++ accepting invalid code?
>
> Yes, but it's a violation of the ODR, no diagnostic is required (it's not
> possible to tell until link time that there's no definition.)
>
> The
--- Comment #13 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 10:38 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> definition
Bah, that entity is the "fi" ligature, it should say definition
(In reply to comment #12)
> So is g++ accepting invalid code?
Yes, but it's a violation of the ODR, no diagnosti
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 10:35 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> [class.static.data]/3
> If a static data member is of const literal type, its declaration in the class
> definition can specify a brace-or-equal-initializer ... The member shall
> still be de
--- Comment #11 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 10:33 ---
[class.static.data]/3
If a static data member is of const literal type, its declaration in the class
definition can specify a brace-or-equal-initializer ... The member shall
still be defined in a namespace scope if it is
--- Comment #10 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 10:26 ---
I disagree that it would be useful, it would encourage non-portable code, and
I'd rather be told about the missing definition.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44673
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC build triple
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 00:30 ---
Then, I reopen this as an enhancement request. If you ever find/redo the patch
or someone else decides to fix this in the same way, it would a nice
improvement for usability.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 00:25 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > In the case of if, the value was "inlined" and in the case of ?:, it is
> > not. I
> > had a patch which changed the behavior but lost it when I moved compani
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-26 00:18 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> In the case of if, the value was "inlined" and in the case of ?:, it is not.
> I
> had a patch which changed the behavior but lost it when I moved companies.
And what did your patch do exac
--- Comment #6 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 23:08 ---
in this variation the result is not an lvalue, so you can get away without a
definition:
(b == 0) ? (int)VAR1 : VAR2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44673
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 23:05 ---
The result of "(b == 0) ? VAR1 : VAR2" is an lvalue, that's the difference
between the two cases.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44673
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 21:47 ---
In the case of if, the value was "inlined" and in the case of ?:, it is not. I
had a patch which changed the behavior but lost it when I moved companies.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44673
--- Comment #3 from Hodapp87 at gmail dot com 2010-06-25 21:45 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You need indeed a definition.
>
Why does it require a definition in the ternary case, but not in the if/else?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44673
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 21:32 ---
Note if case does not need a diagnostic according to the C++ standard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44673
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 21:31 ---
You need indeed a definition.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
18 matches
Mail list logo
