http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Robb 2012-07-02 13:41:11
UTC ---
thank you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-02
13:38:16 UTC ---
It's not a mistake in the standard, and it's not generally possible to warn at
compile-time about a missing definition at link-time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Robb 2012-07-02 12:44:49
UTC ---
As this was a mistake in the language in the standard is should be a
warning.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-02
10:09:26 UTC ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Robb 2012-06-30 06:23:28
UTC ---
template< int n>
class Class {
public:
static int const _n = n;
I thought that _n was defined.
On 29/06/2012 23:01, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-06-29
22:01:07 UTC ---
GCC is having the correct behavior. You don't have a definition for the static
const class variable, only the declaration. You need the definition as you
implictly take the address o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Robb 2012-06-29 20:41:08
UTC ---
template < int n >
class Class {
