My Code is following
#include <stdio.h>
static const char *a ="this is a";
static const char *b ="this is b";
char *comb_ab[2] =
{
a,
b
};
int main() {
int i=0;
for(i=0; i<sizeof(comb_ab)/sizeof(comb_ab[0]); i++) {
printf("%s\n",comb_ab[i]);
}
}
this code is working on G++ compiler(C++) normally. but GCC is not working..
the output is following
test.c:8:2: error: initializer element is not constant
a,
^
test.c:8:2: error: (near initialization for ‘comb_ab[0]’)
test.c:10:1: error: initializer element is not constant
};
^
test.c:10:1: error: (near initialization for ‘comb_ab[1]’)
how to include memeber of variable in the static const *char array on gcc?
please help me!
In C, initializers for objects of static storage duration must be constant expressions.
The value of a variable is never a constant expression, even if it is a const-qualified variable.
So you cannot use the value of a as initializer for comb_ab.
In C++ initializers may have runtime evaluation.
To fix the C version you could make comb_ab be non-static and defined inside main; or you could have code inside main which "initializes" the global comb_ab with the right values.
Also you have a type mismatch: you try to use const char * to initialize char *. But even if you fix that, the previous problem remains. Using g++ you should have got a compiler diagnostic about that.
You might use an address of object with static storage duration as constant expression at the cost of another level of indirection. This is formally known in C as address constant (C11, §6.6/9).
#include <stdio.h>
static const char *a = "this is a";
static const char *b = "this is b";
static const char **comb_ab[2] =
{
&a,
&b
};
int main()
{
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(comb_ab)/sizeof(comb_ab[0]); i++) {
printf("%s\n", *comb_ab[i]);
}
}
Of course, it would be simpler to merge a and b literals with the array. Consider following design:
static const char *comb_ab[] =
{
"this is a",
"this is b",
};
I want to specialize a template for a certain GUID, which is a 16 byte struct. The GUID object has internal linkage, so I can't use the address of the object itself, but I thought I could use the contents of the object, since the object was a constant. But this doesn't work, as illustrated by this example code:
struct S
{
int const i;
};
S const s = { 42 };
char arr[s.i];
Why isn't s.i a constant if s is? Any workaround?
The initialization of the struct s can happen at run time. However, the size of an array must be known at compile time. The compiler won't (for sure) know that the value of s.i is known at compile time, so it just sees you're using a variable for something you shouldn't be. The issue isn't with constness, it's an issue of when the size of the array is needed.
You may be misunderstanding what const means. It only means that after the variable is initialized, it is never changed. For example this is legal:
void func(int x){
const int i = x*5; //can't be known at compile-time, but still const
//int array[i]; //<-- this would be illegal even though i is const
}
int main(){
int i;
std::cin >> i;
func(i);
return 0;
}
To get around this limitation, in C++11 you can mark it as constexpr to indicate that the value can be determined at compile time. This seems to be what you want.
struct S
{
int const i;
};
int main(){
constexpr S const s = { 42 };
char arr[s.i];
return 0;
}
compile with:
$ c++ -std=c++11 -pedantic file.cpp
in C99, what you're doing is legal, the size of an array does not need to be known at compile time.
struct S
{
int const i;
};
int main(){
struct S const s = { 42 };
char arr[s.i];
return 0;
}
compile with:
$ cc -std=c99 -pedantic file.c
At least most of the time, const really means something much closer to "read-only" than to "constant". In C89/90, essentially all it means is "read-only". C++ adds some circumstances in which it can be constant, but it still doesn't even close to all the time (and, unfortunately, keeping track of exactly what it means when is non-trivial).
Fortunately, the "workaround" is to write your code the way you almost certainly should in any case:
std::vector<char> arr(s.i);
Bottom line: most use of a built-in array in C++ should be considered suspect. The fact that you can initialize a vector from a non-constant expression is only one of many advantages.
Is there a difference between the following definitions?
const double PI = 3.141592653589793;
constexpr double PI = 3.141592653589793;
If not, which style is preferred in C++11?
I believe there is a difference. Let's rename them so that we can talk about them more easily:
const double PI1 = 3.141592653589793;
constexpr double PI2 = 3.141592653589793;
Both PI1 and PI2 are constant, meaning you can not modify them. However only PI2 is a compile-time constant. It shall be initialized at compile time. PI1 may be initialized at compile time or run time. Furthermore, only PI2 can be used in a context that requires a compile-time constant. For example:
constexpr double PI3 = PI1; // error
but:
constexpr double PI3 = PI2; // ok
and:
static_assert(PI1 == 3.141592653589793, ""); // error
but:
static_assert(PI2 == 3.141592653589793, ""); // ok
As to which you should use? Use whichever meets your needs. Do you want to ensure that you have a compile time constant that can be used in contexts where a compile-time constant is required? Do you want to be able to initialize it with a computation done at run time? Etc.
No difference here, but it matters when you have a type that has a constructor.
struct S {
constexpr S(int);
};
const S s0(0);
constexpr S s1(1);
s0 is a constant, but it does not promise to be initialized at compile-time. s1 is marked constexpr, so it is a constant and, because S's constructor is also marked constexpr, it will be initialized at compile-time.
Mostly this matters when initialization at runtime would be time-consuming and you want to push that work off onto the compiler, where it's also time-consuming, but doesn't slow down execution time of the compiled program
constexpr indicates a value that's constant and known during compilation.
const indicates a value that's only constant; it's not compulsory to know during compilation.
int sz;
constexpr auto arraySize1 = sz; // error! sz's value unknown at compilation
std::array<int, sz> data1; // error! same problem
constexpr auto arraySize2 = 10; // fine, 10 is a compile-time constant
std::array<int, arraySize2> data2; // fine, arraySize2 is constexpr
Note that const doesn’t offer the same guarantee as constexpr, because const
objects need not be initialized with values known during compilation.
int sz;
const auto arraySize = sz; // fine, arraySize is const copy of sz
std::array<int, arraySize> data; // error! arraySize's value unknown at compilation
All constexpr objects are const, but not all const objects are constexpr.
If you want compilers to guarantee that a variable has a value that can be
used in contexts requiring compile-time constants, the tool to reach for is constexpr, not const.
A constexpr symbolic constant must be given a value that is known at compile time.
For example:
constexpr int max = 100;
void use(int n)
{
constexpr int c1 = max+7; // OK: c1 is 107
constexpr int c2 = n+7; // Error: we don’t know the value of c2
// ...
}
To handle cases where the value of a “variable” that is initialized with a value that is not known at compile time but never changes after initialization,
C++ offers a second form of constant (a const).
For Example:
constexpr int max = 100;
void use(int n)
{
constexpr int c1 = max+7; // OK: c1 is 107
const int c2 = n+7; // OK, but don’t try to change the value of c2
// ...
c2 = 7; // error: c2 is a const
}
Such “const variables” are very common for two reasons:
C++98 did not have constexpr, so people used const.
List item “Variables” that are not constant expressions (their value is not known at compile time) but do not change values after
initialization are in themselves widely useful.
Reference : "Programming: Principles and Practice Using C++" by Stroustrup
One more example to understand the difference between const and constexp.
int main()
{
int n;
cin >> n;
const int c = n; // OK: 'c' can also be initialized at run time
constexpr int e = n; // Error: 'e' must be initialized at compile time
}
Note: constexpr normally evaluated at compile-time, but they are not guaranteed to do so unless they're invoked
in a context where a constant expression is required.
constexpr int add(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
};
int main()
{
int n = add(4, 3); // may or may not be computed at compile time
constexpr int m = add(4,3); // must be computed at compile time
}
constexpr -> Used for compile time constant. This is basically used for run time optimization.
const -> Used for run time constant.
In C/C++, how do I determine the size of the member variable to a structure without needing to define a dummy variable of that structure type? Here's an example of how to do it wrong, but shows the intent:
typedef struct myStruct {
int x[10];
int y;
} myStruct_t;
const size_t sizeof_MyStruct_x = sizeof(myStruct_t.x); // error
For reference, this should be how to find the size of 'x' if you first define a dummy variable:
myStruct_t dummyStructVar;
const size_t sizeof_MyStruct_x = sizeof(dummyStructVar.x);
However, I'm hoping to avoid having to create a dummy variable just to get the size of 'x'. I think there's a clever way to recast 0 as a myStruct_t to help find the size of member variable 'x', but it's been long enough that I've forgotten the details, and can't seem to get a good Google search on this. Do you know?
Thanks!
In C++ (which is what the tags say), your "dummy variable" code can be replaced with:
sizeof myStruct_t().x;
No myStruct_t object will be created: the compiler only works out the static type of sizeof's operand, it doesn't execute the expression.
This works in C, and in C++ is better because it also works for classes without an accessible no-args constructor:
sizeof ((myStruct_t *)0)->x
I'm using following macro:
#include <iostream>
#define DIM_FIELD(struct_type, field) (sizeof( ((struct_type*)0)->field ))
int main()
{
struct ABC
{
int a;
char b;
double c;
};
std::cout << "ABC::a=" << DIM_FIELD(ABC, a)
<< " ABC::c=" << DIM_FIELD(ABC, c) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Trick is treating 0 as pointer to your struct. This is resolved at compile time so it safe.
You can easily do
sizeof(myStruct().x)
As sizeof parameter is never executed, you'll not really create that object.
Any of these should work:
sizeof(myStruct_t().x;);
or
myStruct_t *tempPtr = NULL;
sizeof(tempPtr->x)
or
sizeof(((myStruct_t *)NULL)->x);
Because sizeof is evaluated at compile-time, not run-time, you won't have a problem dereferencing a NULL pointer.
In C++11, this can be done with sizeof(myStruct_t::x). C++11 also adds std::declval, which can be used for this (among other things):
#include <utility>
typedef struct myStruct {
int x[10];
int y;
} myStruct_t;
const std::size_t sizeof_MyStruct_x_normal = sizeof(myStruct_t::x);
const std::size_t sizeof_MyStruct_x_declval = sizeof(std::declval<myStruct_t>().x);
From my utility macros header:
#define FIELD_SIZE(type, field) (sizeof(((type *)0)->field))
invoked like so:
FIELD_SIZE(myStruct_t, x);
C and C++ have many differences, and not all valid C code is valid C++ code.
(By "valid" I mean standard code with defined behavior, i.e. not implementation-specific/undefined/etc.)
Is there any scenario in which a piece of code valid in both C and C++ would produce different behavior when compiled with a standard compiler in each language?
To make it a reasonable/useful comparison (I'm trying to learn something practically useful, not to try to find obvious loopholes in the question), let's assume:
Nothing preprocessor-related (which means no hacks with #ifdef __cplusplus, pragmas, etc.)
Anything implementation-defined is the same in both languages (e.g. numeric limits, etc.)
We're comparing reasonably recent versions of each standard (e.g. say, C++98 and C90 or later)
If the versions matter, then please mention which versions of each produce different behavior.
Here is an example that takes advantage of the difference between function calls and object declarations in C and C++, as well as the fact that C90 allows the calling of undeclared functions:
#include <stdio.h>
struct f { int x; };
int main() {
f();
}
int f() {
return printf("hello");
}
In C++ this will print nothing because a temporary f is created and destroyed, but in C90 it will print hello because functions can be called without having been declared.
In case you were wondering about the name f being used twice, the C and C++ standards explicitly allow this, and to make an object you have to say struct f to disambiguate if you want the structure, or leave off struct if you want the function.
For C++ vs. C90, there's at least one way to get different behavior that's not implementation defined. C90 doesn't have single-line comments. With a little care, we can use that to create an expression with entirely different results in C90 and in C++.
int a = 10 //* comment */ 2
+ 3;
In C++, everything from the // to the end of the line is a comment, so this works out as:
int a = 10 + 3;
Since C90 doesn't have single-line comments, only the /* comment */ is a comment. The first / and the 2 are both parts of the initialization, so it comes out to:
int a = 10 / 2 + 3;
So, a correct C++ compiler will give 13, but a strictly correct C90 compiler 8. Of course, I just picked arbitrary numbers here -- you can use other numbers as you see fit.
The following, valid in C and C++, is going to (most likely) result in different values in i in C and C++:
int i = sizeof('a');
See Size of character ('a') in C/C++ for an explanation of the difference.
Another one from this article:
#include <stdio.h>
int sz = 80;
int main(void)
{
struct sz { char c; };
int val = sizeof(sz); // sizeof(int) in C,
// sizeof(struct sz) in C++
printf("%d\n", val);
return 0;
}
C90 vs. C++11 (int vs. double):
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
auto j = 1.5;
printf("%d", (int)sizeof(j));
return 0;
}
In C auto means local variable. In C90 it's ok to omit variable or function type. It defaults to int. In C++11 auto means something completely different, it tells the compiler to infer the type of the variable from the value used to initialize it.
Another example that I haven't seen mentioned yet, this one highlighting a preprocessor difference:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
#if true
printf("true!\n");
#else
printf("false!\n");
#endif
return 0;
}
This prints "false" in C and "true" in C++ - In C, any undefined macro evaluates to 0. In C++, there's 1 exception: "true" evaluates to 1.
Per C++11 standard:
a. The comma operator performs lvalue-to-rvalue conversion in C but not C++:
char arr[100];
int s = sizeof(0, arr); // The comma operator is used.
In C++ the value of this expression will be 100 and in C this will be sizeof(char*).
b. In C++ the type of enumerator is its enum. In C the type of enumerator is int.
enum E { a, b, c };
sizeof(a) == sizeof(int); // In C
sizeof(a) == sizeof(E); // In C++
This means that sizeof(int) may not be equal to sizeof(E).
c. In C++ a function declared with empty params list takes no arguments. In C empty params list mean that the number and type of function params is unknown.
int f(); // int f(void) in C++
// int f(*unknown*) in C
This program prints 1 in C++ and 0 in C:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(void)
{
int d = (int)(abs(0.6) + 0.5);
printf("%d", d);
return 0;
}
This happens because there is double abs(double) overload in C++, so abs(0.6) returns 0.6 while in C it returns 0 because of implicit double-to-int conversion before invoking int abs(int). In C, you have to use fabs to work with double.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
printf("%d\n", (int)sizeof('a'));
return 0;
}
In C, this prints whatever the value of sizeof(int) is on the current system, which is typically 4 in most systems commonly in use today.
In C++, this must print 1.
Another sizeof trap: boolean expressions.
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
printf("%d\n", (int)sizeof !0);
}
It equals to sizeof(int) in C, because the expression is of type int, but is typically 1 in C++ (though it's not required to be). In practice they are almost always different.
An old chestnut that depends on the C compiler, not recognizing C++ end-of-line comments...
...
int a = 4 //* */ 2
+2;
printf("%i\n",a);
...
The C++ Programming Language (3rd Edition) gives three examples:
sizeof('a'), as #Adam Rosenfield mentioned;
// comments being used to create hidden code:
int f(int a, int b)
{
return a //* blah */ b
;
}
Structures etc. hiding stuff in out scopes, as in your example.
Another one listed by the C++ Standard:
#include <stdio.h>
int x[1];
int main(void) {
struct x { int a[2]; };
/* size of the array in C */
/* size of the struct in C++ */
printf("%d\n", (int)sizeof(x));
}
Inline functions in C default to external scope where as those in C++ do not.
Compiling the following two files together would print the "I am inline" in case of GNU C but nothing for C++.
File 1
#include <stdio.h>
struct fun{};
int main()
{
fun(); // In C, this calls the inline function from file 2 where as in C++
// this would create a variable of struct fun
return 0;
}
File 2
#include <stdio.h>
inline void fun(void)
{
printf("I am inline\n");
}
Also, C++ implicitly treats any const global as static unless it is explicitly declared extern, unlike C in which extern is the default.
#include <stdio.h>
struct A {
double a[32];
};
int main() {
struct B {
struct A {
short a, b;
} a;
};
printf("%d\n", sizeof(struct A));
return 0;
}
This program prints 128 (32 * sizeof(double)) when compiled using a C++ compiler and 4 when compiled using a C compiler.
This is because C does not have the notion of scope resolution. In C structures contained in other structures get put into the scope of the outer structure.
struct abort
{
int x;
};
int main()
{
abort();
return 0;
}
Returns with exit code of 0 in C++, or 3 in C.
This trick could probably be used to do something more interesting, but I couldn't think of a good way of creating a constructor that would be palatable to C. I tried making a similarly boring example with the copy constructor, that would let an argument be passed, albeit in a rather non-portable fashion:
struct exit
{
int x;
};
int main()
{
struct exit code;
code.x=1;
exit(code);
return 0;
}
VC++ 2005 refused to compile that in C++ mode, though, complaining about how "exit code" was redefined. (I think this is a compiler bug, unless I've suddenly forgotten how to program.) It exited with a process exit code of 1 when compiled as C though.
Don't forget the distinction between the C and C++ global namespaces. Suppose you have a foo.cpp
#include <cstdio>
void foo(int r)
{
printf("I am C++\n");
}
and a foo2.c
#include <stdio.h>
void foo(int r)
{
printf("I am C\n");
}
Now suppose you have a main.c and main.cpp which both look like this:
extern void foo(int);
int main(void)
{
foo(1);
return 0;
}
When compiled as C++, it will use the symbol in the C++ global namespace; in C it will use the C one:
$ diff main.cpp main.c
$ gcc -o test main.cpp foo.cpp foo2.c
$ ./test
I am C++
$ gcc -o test main.c foo.cpp foo2.c
$ ./test
I am C
int main(void) {
const int dim = 5;
int array[dim];
}
This is rather peculiar in that it is valid in C++ and in C99, C11, and C17 (though optional in C11, C17); but not valid in C89.
In C99+ it creates a variable-length array, which has its own peculiarities over normal arrays, as it has a runtime type instead of compile-time type, and sizeof array is not an integer constant expression in C. In C++ the type is wholly static.
If you try to add an initializer here:
int main(void) {
const int dim = 5;
int array[dim] = {0};
}
is valid C++ but not C, because variable-length arrays cannot have an initializer.
Empty structures have size 0 in C and 1 in C++:
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct {} Foo;
int main()
{
printf("%zd\n", sizeof(Foo));
return 0;
}
This concerns lvalues and rvalues in C and C++.
In the C programming language, both the pre-increment and the post-increment operators return rvalues, not lvalues. This means that they cannot be on the left side of the = assignment operator. Both these statements will give a compiler error in C:
int a = 5;
a++ = 2; /* error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment */
++a = 2; /* error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment */
In C++ however, the pre-increment operator returns an lvalue, while the post-increment operator returns an rvalue. It means that an expression with the pre-increment operator can be placed on the left side of the = assignment operator!
int a = 5;
a++ = 2; // error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
++a = 2; // No error: a gets assigned to 2!
Now why is this so? The post-increment increments the variable, and it returns the variable as it was before the increment happened. This is actually just an rvalue. The former value of the variable a is copied into a register as a temporary, and then a is incremented. But the former value of a is returned by the expression, it is an rvalue. It no longer represents the current content of the variable.
The pre-increment first increments the variable, and then it returns the variable as it became after the increment happened. In this case, we do not need to store the old value of the variable into a temporary register. We just retrieve the new value of the variable after it has been incremented. So the pre-increment returns an lvalue, it returns the variable a itself. We can use assign this lvalue to something else, it is like the following statement. This is an implicit conversion of lvalue into rvalue.
int x = a;
int x = ++a;
Since the pre-increment returns an lvalue, we can also assign something to it. The following two statements are identical. In the second assignment, first a is incremented, then its new value is overwritten with 2.
int a;
a = 2;
++a = 2; // Valid in C++.