static const double pi = 3.1415;

[Mike Stump]

On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 09:25 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Mike Stump wrote:
>
>> Seems like I am just too radical for ya'll:
> > static const double d = 3.1415;
> >
> > int main() {
> >         foo(d);
> > }
> > static const double d = 3.1415;
>
>> The above C program seemed to work in C++ as well.  Either, that is a 
>> bug in C and C++, or somewhere, it is defined well enough to work.
>
> We were talking about static *member* constants, not plain static
> constants. The latter are well formed (they do not have to be 
> initialized
> by a constant expression).

I still feel like I am on Mars:

LC0:
         .long   1074340298
         .long   -1065151889

_main:
LFB1:
         mflr r3
         stw r31,-4(r1)
LCFI0:
         bcl 20,31,L1$pb
L1$pb:
         stw r3,8(r1)
LCFI1:
         mflr r31
         stwu r1,-80(r1)
LCFI2:
         addis r2,r31,ha16(LC0-L1$pb)
         lfd f1,lo16(LC0-L1$pb)(r2)
         bl L__Z3food$stub

Like I said, you may not know fine, but my compiler, and the language 
standard, unless you can claim it is a bug in the compiler, they know.

Oh, and by the way if you are correct, that it can be something other 
than a constant, why does the compiler give:

bash-2.05a$ gcc -O3 -S  t.c
t.c:3: initializer element is not constant

in the case of C.

double bar();

static const double d = bar();
void foo(double);
int main() {
         foo(d);
}

is this a bug in the compiler that needs fixing?