------- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-01
13:01 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes. Notice that also this code:
>
> struct A
> {
> static const int a = 45;
> };
>
> is invalid without a matching definition. That is, you need to
> provide a single definition of:
>
> const int A::a;
Thanks, I understand this.
I was wondering why gcjh generates an explicit
(and incorrect for reals, as it turns out) initialisation
for a "final" Java field but not otherwise. That
is, given:
static final int foo = 32;
v/s
static int bar = 42;
gcjh generates the initialiser only for "foo",
but not "bar".
In both cases, *someone* needs to initialise
these fields, right? Since these are generated
from Java classes, presumably the "Java side"
will initialise them - but then, why explicitly
write it out for "final" (const) fields?
This is what I attempted to suppress with my
patch in the first followup comment in this PR.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19738
