Ah, perfect. Thanks for the explanation.
Brian
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Brian Budge <brian.budge@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> I'm running into an issue using static const variables in my template
>> class, but only with -O0. I have something like this:
>>
>> Bar.h
>>
>> template <typename Foo>
>> class Bar {
>> ...
>> public:
>> typedef uint32_t SomeType;
>> static const SomeType A = 0;
>> static const SomeType B = 1;
>> static const SomeType C = 2;
>> ...
>> };
>>
>> These types are used in Bar member functions, as well as by Foo (who
>> knows who he is an argument for).
>>
>> In -O1 and above, it looks like the symbols are never generated, and
>> this is fine since it's probably folded into the code. In O0, which
>> I'm using for debugging, the symbols appear in my object file as 'U'
>> (unresolved).
>
> The declaration of a const in a class is only a declaration. You also
> need a definition. The current C++ standard says that the definition is
> always required, but that in some cases an implementation need not
> diagnose it. The new C++ standard will relax this in some cases, but
> gcc does not yet implement that.
>
> That is, in some .cc file, you need to do
>
> const SomeType Bar::A;
> const SomeType Bar::B;
> ...
>
> Note that since the const was initialized in the declaration, it should
> not be initialized in the definition.
>
> Ian
>
