[Bug c++/11393] Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98

["rearnsha at arm dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11393



------- Additional Comments From rearnsha at arm dot com  2003-07-02 17:06 -------
Subject: Re:  Initializer of static const float class 
 member is not legal in c++98

> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11393
> 
> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2003-07-02 16:47 -------
> Subject: Re:  Initializer of static const float class member is not legal in c++98
> 
>  From <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html>:
> To select this standard in GCC, use one of the options -ansi, -std=c89 
> or -std=iso9899:1990; to obtain all the diagnostics required by the 
> standard, you should also specify -pedantic (or -pedantic-errors if you 
> want them to be errors rather than warnings).  See Options Controlling 
> C Dialect
> 

Well, for starters C++ isn't a C dialect.  For seconds, it really doesn't 
make sense to me that, given I can type

	-std=gnu89

to get GNU extensions,

	-std=c89 

doesn't give me (at the very least) warnings about GNU extensions.  Why 
have the option at all?

We should just make the compiler use gnu89 (or gnu99, or whatever) as the 
default, and have -std=c89 *mean* c89 code not something else.

Even more perverse is that 

	-std=gnu89 -pedantic

gives me warnings about ISO-isms.

R.