c++/6546: static const members optimization failure

[Phil Edwards]

On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 07:12:14PM +0000, Nathan Myers wrote:
> The result is that, in fact, gcc-2.95 was correct in not demanding
> a separate definition of the static member, and gcc-3 (while not
> strictly nonconforming) has in fact regressed.

Well then, submit a patch.

I don't see any use in arguing about it on the library list.


Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams