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: "fang at csl dot cornell dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 20 Dec 2005 16:27:49 -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 #5 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2005-12-20 16:27 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Forward explicit
intantiation declaration doesn't mix well with static integral member
> ------- 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 ?
in-class definitions of static const integral types are *permitted* in
lieu of out-of-class definitions -- but you need one or the other. Also
enums are never allocated memory in object files (data section), as per
W.B.'s remark.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25260