Thank you for answers! > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm not a GCC dev; but I believe that it's normal that this code gets > > rejected. There's nothing in the c++98 or c++0x specs that guarantees > > that constant global variables are actually constant --- as you could > > in theory take pointers to them, const_cast, and dereference. It just > > so happens that (at least here on gnu+linux) gcc puts such constant > > global variables in a read-only segment, so that doing that is an > > access violation. In other words, it was pretty unsafe that GCC > > accepted this code and I'm glad to head it is now rejecting it :) > > That makes no sense to me. Ok, I will change "static const" back to plain old "#define"s, as that seems to work. > The compiler is right: the value of `x' cannot fit in an int, therefore the > declaration is ill-formed. This has nothing to do with constexpr. (-1) isn't representible in unsigned as well, but I suppose I should read the c++0x "standard" then, thanks :) Thanks, Zdenek
