------- Comment #2 from michael dot zillich at gmx dot net 2007-10-23 23:43 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > And this is correct behavior. The C++ standard says they have to be declared > still, you just have a definition.
Ok, got You. But then why the different bahaviour for a) optimization turned on/off b) if the arguments are not passed with references (the function mux() in my example) I suspect that if I do not actually define it, the compiler will just substitute any occurcnce of say A::x with the literal value 1. And of course this fails as soon as I need a reference to A::x In any case I would expect an undefined reference reported in all cases. Or a warning, at least with -Wall. As it is now the compiler behaviour is a bit unclear, not complaining in one case, correctly reporting error in the other case. Personally I am all for strict adherence to standards. (Thanks for the lightning-fast answer by the way! :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33876
