https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||JamesMikeDuPont@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-19
17:12:11 UTC ---
N.B. we wrote a FAQ entry about this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-19
16:58:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> it will be possible to add better waring/error in this case?
Not easily, the error you get is from the linker. This has been discussed MANY
times in ot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #11 from trashyankes at wp dot pl 2011-10-19 16:35:06 UTC ---
it will be possible to add better waring/error in this case?
is complicity misleading when you use `static const` or `static constexpr` for
long time and when you try get ref
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-19 13:07:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I disagree. It is odr-used because the lvalue-to-rvalue conversions is not
> immediately applied.
>
> In (1*test::value) the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-19
13:04:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I agree that the test case should require the definition of the static member,
> the actual reason being that the constraint in 3.2 p2,
>
> "[..] unless i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50785
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-19 12:54:24 UTC ---
I agree that the test case should require the definition of the static member,
the actual reason being that the constraint in 3.2 p2,
"[..] unless it is an object that satisfies the
