http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-19
12:47:47 UTC ---
I agree, I agree.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-19
12:46:00 UTC ---
and I assume -O eliminates the reference binding due to inlining and value
propagation
this all seems normal for a missing definition of a static const member, like
dozens of other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-19
12:43:59 UTC ---
test::value is an lvalue, binding a reference to it is an odr-use
(1*test::value) produces an rvalue, the reference is not bound to test::value,
so it is not odr-used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-19
08:34:45 UTC ---
The definition is required, see [class.static.data] p3
"A static data member of literal type can be declared in the class definition
with the constexpr specifier; [...] The member sha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-19
01:34:50 UTC ---
What happens if you add a definition: constexpr double test::value; after your
struct like you would for any non-constrexpr static data member?
