Jan Tusch <tu...@isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:
> I observed the following issue with g++-4.3.4:
>
> I can work around the restriction of initializing a static const integral
> class member with a non-constant expression.
> This violates the standard and should be rejected by "-pedantic".
> Correct me, if I'm wrong.
>
> I cut down my code to the following (concededly a bit contrived) demo
> scenario:
>
> --- Example Code ---
> template <class NT, int x>
> struct X {
> static const NT VALUE;
> };
> template <class NT, int x>
> const NT X<NT,x>::VALUE = static_cast<NT>(x);
>
> struct FailingTruth {
> static const bool VALUE = X<double,1>::VALUE < X<double,1>::VALUE;
> };
>
> template <int x, int y>
> struct Test {
> static const bool VALUE = X<double,x>::VALUE < X<double,y>::VALUE;
> };
>
> struct WorkingTruth {
> static const bool VALUE = Test<1,2>::VALUE;
> };
>
> template <bool B>
> struct UseAsTemplateParamter {
> enum {
> VALUE = B
> };
> };
>
> UseAsTemplateParamter<WorkingTruth::VALUE> object;
>
> --- End Example Code ---
>
> The compiler correctly complains with
> error: ‘X<double, 1>::VALUE’ cannot appear in a constant-expression
> in "FailingTruth".
>
> However, when I encasulate the very same condition using the Test template
> class, the "WorkingTruth" code is accepted by g++. I could even use
> WorkingTruth::VALUE as a non-type template parameter (see last line).
This question is not appropriate for the mailing list g...@gcc.gnu.org.
It would be appropriate for gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org. Please take any
followups to gcc-help. Thanks.
I agree that this appears to be a bug. Please consider reporting it
per the instructions at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ . Thanks.
Ian
