[Bug c++/19610] default constructor not called for static template member of template class

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2005-01-26 04:16 
---
The declaration of a specialization is not a definition, unless it has 
an explicit initializer call. The way you want to write this is  
as follows: 
  template  Achar Bchar::a = Achar(); 
The standard specifically says that this is the only permissible 
syntax for default initialization. 
 
W. 
 
 

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19610

[Bug c++/19610] default constructor not called for static template member of template class

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-24 
20:38 ---
I think this is invalid because you are just specializing them and nothing else 
(note the aa2 can be done 
the non specialized way too but I showed the specialized way):
// declare space for them
templatetypename T AT BT::a;
templatetypename T AAT BT::aa;
//specialize Bchar::aa2
template AAchar Bchar::aa2(1);

//instantiate them
template Achar Bchar::a;
template AAchar Bchar::aa;
template AAchar Bchar::aa2;

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19610

[Bug c++/19610] default constructor not called for static template member of template class

[jamesp at trdlnk dot com]

--- Additional Comments From jamesp at trdlnk dot com  2005-01-24 21:19 
---
I've tried what you suggested, and it did work, but now I'm confused. Why was
the constructor for aa2 called in the original example? Based on what you have
said, it sounds like that should not have happened until aa2 was instantiated.
If it is working properly then I don't understand why the extra line to
instantiate aa2 is necessary in your fix. The fact that I specialized them all
the same way and some of them were constructed and others weren't seems odd to 
me.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19610