------- Comment #7 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-05-12 17:53 ------- Subject: Re: fail to link to static const double
> ------- Comment #6 from dennis0yang at gmail dot com 2007-05-12 17:19 ------- > Subject: Re: fail to link to static const double > > I understand perfectly well everything you said. But I think you miss > the point of this bug report. > This is not about the c++ standard in terms of what should and should > not be done. This is about get rid of the "luck" component in gcc. If > gcc decides not to support in-class definition for static const double, > then flag the statement as an error. I really don't see why the compile You can reject non-integer in-class static const definitions with: CXXFLAGS += -ansi -pedantic-errors (also rejects many other non-standardisms, if you're prepared to do so!) > doesn't substitute the value everywhere it see the reference (as you > mentioned), because it is a static const! The compiler is really not required to do even the simplest of optimizations. -O0 really means NO optimizations, even the no-brainers such as this one. FWIW, as a user, I build/test with different optimization levels to catch these sort of errors (in case I forget a const definition). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31904
