d
code.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dpovey at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45374
--- Comment #2 from dpovey at gmail dot com 2010-08-23 21:51 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Yes you are right, but it is more than that bug, because I created an example
where gcc wrongly *rejects* code that it should accept, as well as one where it
wrongly accepts code that it should
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dpovey at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44548
--- Comment #2 from dpovey at gmail dot com 2010-06-15 22:19 ---
I don't agree with you that this is not a bug, although I do agree that I could
have coded it differently.
Look at
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/comphelp/v8v101/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.xlcpp8a.doc/lan
t gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: dpovey at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44552
--- Comment #1 from dpovey at gmail dot com 2010-06-15 22:47 ---
Sorry, I made a mistake in the last line: I meant "Definitely not meaningful
for a const member."
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44552
--- Comment #5 from dpovey at gmail dot com 2010-06-15 23:22 ---
OK thanks guys.
--
dpovey at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #7 from dpovey at gmail dot com 2010-06-16 17:57 ---
The key thing here is that the value was initialized inside the class. So
there is no way to syntactically disambiguate a definition and a declaration of
the value outside the class (because normally C++ uses the
