https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111301
Bug ID: 111301
Summary: misleading messages about missing "inline"
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de
Target Milestone: ---
Another case of misleading messages:
% cat test.cpp
struct S
{
static int i = 0;
static float f = 0;
};
% g++ -c -std=c++23 test.cpp
test.cpp:3:14: error: ISO C++ forbids in-class initialization of non-const
static member 'S::i'
3 | static int i = 0;
| ^
test.cpp:4:16: error: 'constexpr' needed for in-class initialization of static
data member 'float S::f' of non-integral type [-fpermissive]
4 | static float f = 0;
| ^
First of all, the two different messages are irritating. As I understand it,
that's because there is an exception for "static const int", apparently mostly
for historic reasons, and actually not really relevant here. Anyway, even if it
seems worth mentioning this exception at all (I doubt it now that we have
constexpr), the messages could be merged, saying "non-const, non-integral ..."
to make it clearer it's actually the same issue both times.
Also, "forbid" and "needed" is too strongly worded now that "static inline" is
also possible (and in fact what I meant to write).
