Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:5933 gnu.g++.bug:1256
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,gnu.g++.bug
Subject: Re: bug 12178901 (1.36.1) - linkage of global const objects
Message-ID: <258E97BA.2902@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 89 20:19:06 GMT
References: <1516@aber-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: Ron Guilmette <rfg@ics.uci.edu>
Distribution: gnu
Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS
Lines: 33

In article <1516@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>In article <8912171136.aa08237@ICS.UCI.EDU> rfg@ICS.UCI.EDU writes:
>    
>    // bug 12178901 - linkage of global const objects
>    
>    // What is the `linkage' of const objects in C++?
>
>storage class, not linkage: static
>    
>    // GCC generates code for the following such that `ci' has
>    // extern linkage, and such that its initial value is 99.
>
>Ansi C inanely mandates it.
>
>    // G++ 1.36.1 however optimizes this declaration into nothing.
>    // Thus, if some other file contained `extern const int ci;'
>    // that other file would fail to link.
>    
>    const int ci = 99;
>

>Now, now, I am disappointed :-) about rfg not reading one of my previous
>fundamental and world enlightening contributions (:-> :-> :->): ...

Sorry Peter.  I'll pay closer attention from now on. :-)

Anyway, many people have now corrected me regarding the C++ default linkage
for const objects.  Now I only wish that I understood why my postings to
gnu.g++.bug are getting automatically cross posted to comp.lang.c++.
I wish that this were not the case because it just means that my ignorance
becomes obvious to more people this way. :-)

// rfg