...I only tried to explain my point
of view...you and the rest of the bugzilla team know what to do.
Thank
you all so much!
Messaggio originale
Da: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.
gnu.org
Data: 24/02/2011 12.27
A:
Ogg: [Bug
c++/47861] static variables inside member functions
http://gcc.gnu.
org/bugz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-24
11:27:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
>
> oo.cc:4:3: Warning: 'it' is declared as a function-scope
> static, error prone, see static member variables
No, it is not "error prone" - it is valid
going to search for the static var
definition.
Messaggio originale
Da: gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
Data: 24/02/2011 11.44
A:
Ogg: [Bug c++/47861]
static variables inside member functions
http://gcc.gnu.
org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely
2011-02-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-24
10:44:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The issue is clearly caused by having
> declared static the iterator.
So that's a bug, don't do that.
> Obviously the same snippet code can be
> replac
ten in this way...a
forced definition of the iterator being static
would probably prevent some unprapred c++ users to make similar
mistakes.
Thank you all.
Messaggio originale
Da: gcc-
bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
Data: 23/02/2011 22.28
A:
Ogg: [Bug c++/47861] static variables inside mem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-23
21:28:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Also it is hard to produce a warning when it comes to a failure that will only
> be diagnostic at link time.
IIUC I think the OP wants a warning for:
str
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2011-02-23
21:19:56 UTC ---
Also it is hard to produce a warning when it comes to a failure that will only
be diagnostic at link time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-23
20:57:57 UTC ---
As requested, please provide a code example showing what you mean, and explain
what warning you would like to be issued.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-23
20:55:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yep a warning stating the similarity of a static member function variable to
> its counterpart as a static member would be appreciated...maybe when
> pedan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
--- Comment #2 from michal.tlk at gmail dot com 2011-02-23 20:45:23 UTC ---
Yep a warning stating the similarity of a static member function variable to
its counterpart as a static member would be appreciated...maybe when
pedantic option is going t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47861
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
12 matches
Mail list logo
