Re: c++/9927: Compiler requires definition of static member constants

[Andrew Bell <acbell at iastate dot edu>]

The following reply was made to PR c++/9927; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Andrew Bell <acbell at iastate dot edu>
To: bangerth at dealii dot org, acbell at iastate dot edu, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
        gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org, nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/9927: Compiler requires definition of static member
  constants
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 16:21:50 -0600

 At 10:01 PM 3/3/2003 +0000, you wrote:
 >Old Synopsis: Compiler doesn't inline static const int's used in ?:
 >New Synopsis: Compiler requires definition of static member constants
 >
 >State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 >State-Changed-By: bangerth
 >State-Changed-When: Mon Mar  3 22:01:45 2003
 >State-Changed-Why:
 >     The compiler is allowed to require that you provide a
 >     definition of static member constants. I think, they are
 >     even mandated. That's exactly what happens in your case.
 >
 >     You'll notice, however, that if you compile with optimization,
 >     the compiler actually replaces references to these
 >     variables by their values, which is probably what you
 >     want.
 
 Why, then, does the program compile and link if the "?:" construct is 
 replaced with a "if (...) else (...)", even if the static const int's are 
 not defined.  I thought this was a special case for const int's.
 
 
 -- Andrew Bell
 acbell at iastate dot edu