On 10/18/2010 02:04 PM, Matt Fischer wrote:
> I'm attempting to port some code to gcc, and in a couple of places
> it's using a construct that it doesn't like. A simplified example is
> the following (this is in global scope):
>
> static const int A = 1;
> static const int B = A;
>
> This compiles fine with g++, but gcc says "error: initializer element
> is not constant". The compiler this code used to use handles it fine,
> and given that it's also legal in C++, I was wondering if anybody
> could comment on the (il)legality of this construct.
C++ constants != C const variables. Compare
static const int A = 1;
void bar();
void foo(int x)
{
switch (x)
{
case A:
bar();
}
}
This is also legal C++, but not legal C.
r~
