Jonathan Wakely wrote:
To my best knowledge even with the inclass line static const int value = true ; you have to give a definition outside of the class: int A::value;
Only if A::value is "used in the program". Stroustrup says if you use it in a way that requires the object to be stored in memory, e.g take its address
AFAICT you don't need to give an out-of-class definition if the value is only used in integral constant expressions. Is that right?
Not quite. In practice, you are right, but the standard requires *exactly* one definition for all static data members. See 9.4.2/5. So, while Franz is right in theory, you are right in practice. :) And FWIW it's IMHO irrelevant here anyway as we are trying to create a workaround for a compiler bug. The generic (and presumably correct) code is not touched, we just add a #ifdef'ed something which simply works - whether or not it's standard conformant. And I think we've already seen worse bugs and workarounds already :-D Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey@aixigo.de, web: http://www.aixigo.de