Hello. On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 02:02:09PM -0500, John Ratliff wrote: > This seems like a definite bug. The fact that it works in 3.4.2 and not in > 3.3.3 seems like a probable bug to me, but I will ask this question in a > standard C++ newsgroup so that someone intimately familiar with the standard > can give me a definitive answer, but I still think g++ 3.3 is wrong and g++ > 3.4 is right. > > If I were taking the address of the constant, sure, it would have to have > storage space and I wouldn't expect it any other way. > I agree in that this is a weird behaviour, but I don't think it's exactly a bug, unless it is mandatory for a compiler to try everything possible before taking the address of a constant. Maybe GCC 3.3 simply couldn't find a way to use the constants directly. -- Alex J. Dam
