------- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-20 17:23 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Forward explicit intantiation declaration doesn't mix well with static integral member
"fang at csl dot cornell dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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. For me, this discussion is yet another evidence for the remark "that is a misfeature" (about the whole in-class initialization for const integral business) that could be found in earlier printings of TC++PL3. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25260