Re: c++/9881: Incorrect address calculation for static class member

[Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu>]

> It seems to me that a cast to a pointer should always have the same meaning.
> That is, when reinterpreting the bits, the meaning of those bits cannot imply a
> static context in one case and a dynamic in another. That seems too bizarre.

This I leave to ones more trained in C++ standard legalese.

> So what is the next step? My code use to work with gcc 3.2 and now fails with
> gcc 3.3. My understanding is that gcc3.3 is scheduled for release very soon and
> I would like my code to work with it. What law firm do I need to hire to press
> my case as it seems the issue is an open question for the current version of
> g++. What if I get a note from Bjarne saying which way it's suppose to go?

Then this would be one more in the list of 400 or so C++ reports where we
know that gcc is doing the wrong thing. If your claim is right then this
would be a regression -- that would raise the priority of the report, but
doesn't imply any guarantees. You didn't pay for gcc you have no claim
against it. If you really need to make your code run with gcc3.3, you have
3 options:
- you fix gcc
- you pay someone to fix gcc
- you work around it in your code.


> However, the bottom-line is that I should not need to justify a legitimate use
> for some feature in the language. (What a programmer wishes to do in the
> privacy their own code is their business.) The feature is there for me to use,
> and should work correctly (modulo the current outstanding legal question).

True enough, modulo the thing about free software: it comes "as is", 
without any guarantees.

Sorry for not being of more help
  Wolfgang

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu
                              www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/