Please stop cc'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED], by the way. That only works for
appending to an existing PR, and there is no PR to append to. So their
GNATS database pukes.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:18:45PM -0600, James E Jurach Jr. wrote:
> > Compilers are allowed to optimize static const integral m
> Right. I'm reporting that
>
> 1) gcc's behavior changed in this regard in 2.96 and 3.00 from 2.95 and
>previous, and
Why is that a problem? The compiler does not need to be consistent.
> 2) gcc sometimes uses these values directly without defining the variables,
>while other times gc
> Compilers are allowed to optimize static const integral members, in the
> sense that their values may be used directly.
Right. I'm reporting that
1) gcc's behavior changed in this regard in 2.96 and 3.00 from 2.95 and
previous, and
2) gcc sometimes uses these values directly without defini
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:45:40PM -0600, James E Jurach Jr. wrote:
> I understood from nm(1) output that, at least in the past, g++ did not
> create a symbol for these int's, but rather performed some kind of inline
> optimization.
Compilers are allowed to optimize static const integral members,
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 05:06:31PM -0600, James Jurach wrote:
> > When class members declared as static const int appear in conditional
> > expressions, they are not properly optimized out. The compiler treats them
> > as undefined variables, rather than integer literals.
>
> That's because they
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 05:06:31PM -0600, James Jurach wrote:
> When class members declared as static const int appear in conditional
> expressions, they are not properly optimized out. The compiler treats them
> as undefined variables, rather than integer literals.
That's because they /are/ unde
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:James Jurach
>Organization: FundsXpress
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: static const int optimization fails in conditional expressions
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Category: c++
>Class: sw-bug
>
7 matches
Mail list logo
