dwblaikie wrote: > It looks like the presence of `static` on template variable specializations > makes difference in the namespace context: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/WGsreqbz8 > > Specifically, the specializations not marked `static` result in an exported > variable. Thus, we have seemingly valid code that generates this diagnostic: > > ``` > namespace A { > template <unsigned N> > static constexpr unsigned kMaxUnsignedInt = 2 * kMaxUnsignedInt<N - 1> + 1; > > template <> > static constexpr unsigned kMaxUnsignedInt<1> = 1; > } > ``` > > However, if we remove the `static` from the specialization, we're getting a > potential ODR violation (considering this code can be in a header included > into multiple translation units). > > The right thing for this specific case is `inline constexpr`, but > nevertheless, there seems to be an inconsistency now in how Clang handles the > case now.
This seems to be pretty clearly a bug - in clang's specialization handling even prior to this patch. GCC doesn't do this, it uses the storage class of the generic template for the specialization, which seems correct to me. @sdkrystian are you interested in/able to fix this ^ ? https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oPxKvvdeM https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
