This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/25260] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Forward explicit intantiation declaration doesn't mix well with static integral member
- From: "nicos at maunakeatech dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 20 Dec 2005 09:20:58 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/25260] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Forward explicit intantiation declaration doesn't mix well with static integral member
- References: <bug-25260-11057@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #3 from nicos at maunakeatech dot com 2005-12-20 09:20 -------
I was under the belief that out of class definitions of const static integral
members was optional for gcc and that static const N = k; was equivalent to
enum { N = k};, was I wrong ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25260