This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why are unnamed namespaces used and what are their benefits?
Looking at someones code and this is what they have declared:
namespace {
struct myStruct {
int x;
int y;
} obj1;
}
..in a function I see it used like this:
myStruct& var = obj1;
(Notice namespace is anonymous.)
From how I see it used, I can not figure out why it is declared and used like this.
What does declaring it like this do differently?
Also, why is the pointer created like this rather than the traditional style shown here. i.e. myStruct *ptr;
Thank You!
Everything that's declared inside an anonymous namespace gets a unique, unknowable name, and thus cannot be referred to from any other translation unit. The anonymous namespace is thus guaranteed to be local to the current translation unit only, and never to clash with a different one.
For example, if you say namespace { int i; }, you are guaranteed that only the current translation unit sees the global i. Even if this declaration is in a header that's included in multiple, different TUs, each TU receives its own copy of the global variable (each with a different, unknowable fully-qualified name).
The effect was similar to declaring a global object static (which gives the global object internal linkage) in C++03, where objects in the anonymous namespace may still have external linkage. In C++11, names in an unnamed namespace have internal linkage as per 3.5/4, so the effect is exactly the same for variables and functions as declaring them static – but internal linkage applies to more than just variables and functions (e.g. enums, classes, templates), so as of C++11, you should always prefer unnamed namespaces!
In C++ you are only allowed to have one definition in a given named scope. If there are multiple translation units, you are still only allowed to have one definition but the compiler won't guarantee that all definitions are, indeed, identical. That is, if you need a local type, e.g., a struct or a class you need to make sure that the definition does not conflict with another type anywhere in any other translation unit. Doing this is pretty much impossible in a large project unless you have a way to somehow locally protect your type. This is what an unnamed namespace provides: any name defined within an unnamed namespace is unique within the entire executable.
It does basically the same thing as the static keyword but doesn't actually force internal linkage. The variable is still externally linked, you just have no way of resolving its name in any other translation unit. This was necessary because template arguments must have external linkage, or at least used to require such.
var is also not a pointer, it is a reference. It's not created like other pointers because it is not one.
Also, why is the pointer created like this rather than the traditional style shown here. i.e. myStruct *ptr;
It's a reference, not a pointer, that is created with myStruct& var = obj1; The same rationale applies to pointers, however. A lot of C++ programmers prefer myStruct* ptr over myStruct *ptr, myStruct& ref over myStruct &ref. The compiler doesn't care which you use. This style preference is for the reader of the code.
The reason for putting the asterisk or ampersand with the type rather than the variable is because that asterisk or ampersand is logically a part of the type. The type of ptr is pointer to myStruct. A potential problem arises with this scheme: Type* ptr1, ptr2; Because of rules inherited from C, ptr2 isn't a pointer. It's just an int.
There's an easy solution to this problem. Don't do that! In general, it is better to declare one variable per declaration, with an exception for simple things like int i,j,k; Don't mix pointers and non-pointers.
Related
I am trying to understand the difference between the declaration & definition of static and non-static data members. Apology, if I am fundamentally miss understood concepts. Your explanations are highly appreciated.
Code Trying to understand
class A
{
public:
int ns; // declare non-static data member.
static int s; // declare static data member.
void foo();
};
int A::s; // define non-static data member.
// int A::ns; //This gives an error if defined.
void A::foo()
{
ns = 10;
s = 5; // if s is not defined this gives an error 'undefined reference'
}
When you declare something, you're telling the compiler that the name being declared exists and what kind of name it is (type, variable, function, etc.) The definition could be with the declaration (as with your class A) or be elsewhere—the compiler and linker will have to connect the two later.
The key point of a variable or function definition is that it tells the compiler and linker where this variable/function will live. If you have a variable, there needs to be a place in memory for it. If you have a function, there needs to be a place in the binary containing the function's instructions.
For non-static data members, the declaration is also the definition. That is, you're giving them a place to live¹. This place is within each instance of the class. Every time you make a new A object, it comes with an ns as part of it.
Static data members, on the other hand, have no associated object. Without a definition, you've got a situation where you have N instances of A all sharing the same s, but nowhere to put s. Therefore, C++ makes you choose one translation unit for it via a definition, most often the source file that acommpanies that header.
You could argue that the compiler should just pick one instance for it, but this won't work for various reasons, one being that you can use static data members before ever creating an instance, after the last instance is gone, or without having instances at all.
Now you might wonder why the compiler and linker still can't just figure it out on their own, and... that's actually pretty much what happens if you slap an inline on the variable or function. You can end up with multiple definitions, but only one will be chosen.
1: Giving them a place to live is a little beside the point here. All the compiler needs to know when it creates an object of that class is how much space to give it and which parts of that space are which data members. You could think of it as the compiler doing the definition part for you since there's only one place that data member could possibly live.
static members are essentially global variables with a special name and access rules tied to the class. Hence, they inherit all the problems for usual global variables. Namely, in the whole C++ program (which is the union of all translation units aka .cpp files) there should be exactly one definition of each global variable, no more.
You can think of "variable definition" as "the place which will allocate memory for the variable".
However, classes are typically defined in a header file (.h/.hpp/etc) which is included in multiple translation units. So it's up to the programmer to specify which translation unit actually defines the variable. Note that since C++17 we have the inline keyword which places this burden on a compiler, look for "inline variables". The naming is weird for historical reasons.
However, non-static members do not really exist until you create an instance of the class, i.e. an object. And it's the object lifetime and storage duration which define how each individual member is created/stored/destroyed. So there is no need to actually define them anywhere outside of the class.
static variables belongs to the class definition. non-static variables belong to the instances created with the class definition.
int main()
{
A::s = 5; // this is ok
A a;
a.ns = 5 // this is also ok
}
I have the following working code:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
const std::string test = "42";
//static const std::string test = "42"; // fails
};
int main(void){
A a;
std::cout << a.test << '\n';
}
Is there a good reason why it is not possible to make the test a static const ? I do understand prior to c++11 it was constrained by the standard. I thought that c++11 introduced in-class initializations to make it a little bit friendlier. I also not such semantic are available for integral type since quite some time.
Of course it works with the out-of class initialization in form of const std::string A::test = "42";
I guess that, if you can make it non-static, then the problem lies in one of the two. Initializing it out-of-class scope (normally consts are created during the instantiation of the object). But I do not think this is the problem if you are creating an object independant of any other members of the class. The second is having multiple definitions for the static member. E.g. if it were included in several .cpp files, landing into several object-files, and then the linker would have troubles when linking those object together (e.g. into one executable), as they would contain copies of the same symbol. To my understanding, this is exactly equal to the situation when ones provides the out-of-class right under the class declaration in the header, and then includes this common header in more than one place. As I recall, this leads to linker errors.
However, now the responsibility of handling this is moved onto user/programmer. If one wants to have a library with a static they need to provide a out-of-class definition, compile it into a separate object file, and then link all other object to this one, therefore having only one copy of the binary definition of the symbol.
I read the answers in Do we still need to separately define static members, even if they are initialised inside the class definition? and Why can't I initialize non-const static member or static array in class?.
I still would like to know:
Is it only a standard thing, or there is deeper reasoning behind it?
Can this be worked-around with the constexpr and user-defined
literals mechanisms. Both clang and g++ say the variable cannot have non-literal type. Maybe I can make one. (Maybe for some reason its also a bad idea)
Is it really such a big issue for linker to include only one copy of
the symbol? Since it is static const all should be binary-exact
immutable copies.
Plese also comment if I am missing or missunderstanding something.
Your question sort of has two parts. What does the standard say? And why is it so?
For a static member of type const std::string, it is required to be defined outside the class specifier and have one definition in one of the translation units. This is part of the One Definition Rule, and is specified in clause 3 of the C++ standard.
But why?
The problem is that an object with static storage duration needs unique static storage in the final program image, so it needs to be linked from one particular translation unit. The class specifier doesn't have a home in one translation unit, it just defines the type (which is required to be identically defined in all translation units where it is used).
The reason a constant integral doesn't need storage, is that it is used by the compiler as a constant expression and inlined at point of use. It never makes it to the program image.
However a complex type, like a std::string, with static storage duration need storage, even if they are const. This is because they may need to be dynamically initialized (have their constructor called before the entry to main).
You could argue that the compiler should store information about objects with static storage duration in each translation unit where they are used, and then the linker should merge these definitions at link-time into one object in the program image. My guess for why this isn't done, is that it would require too much intelligence from the linker.
I have the following working code:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
const std::string test = "42";
//static const std::string test = "42"; // fails
};
int main(void){
A a;
std::cout << a.test << '\n';
}
Is there a good reason why it is not possible to make the test a static const ? I do understand prior to c++11 it was constrained by the standard. I thought that c++11 introduced in-class initializations to make it a little bit friendlier. I also not such semantic are available for integral type since quite some time.
Of course it works with the out-of class initialization in form of const std::string A::test = "42";
I guess that, if you can make it non-static, then the problem lies in one of the two. Initializing it out-of-class scope (normally consts are created during the instantiation of the object). But I do not think this is the problem if you are creating an object independant of any other members of the class. The second is having multiple definitions for the static member. E.g. if it were included in several .cpp files, landing into several object-files, and then the linker would have troubles when linking those object together (e.g. into one executable), as they would contain copies of the same symbol. To my understanding, this is exactly equal to the situation when ones provides the out-of-class right under the class declaration in the header, and then includes this common header in more than one place. As I recall, this leads to linker errors.
However, now the responsibility of handling this is moved onto user/programmer. If one wants to have a library with a static they need to provide a out-of-class definition, compile it into a separate object file, and then link all other object to this one, therefore having only one copy of the binary definition of the symbol.
I read the answers in Do we still need to separately define static members, even if they are initialised inside the class definition? and Why can't I initialize non-const static member or static array in class?.
I still would like to know:
Is it only a standard thing, or there is deeper reasoning behind it?
Can this be worked-around with the constexpr and user-defined
literals mechanisms. Both clang and g++ say the variable cannot have non-literal type. Maybe I can make one. (Maybe for some reason its also a bad idea)
Is it really such a big issue for linker to include only one copy of
the symbol? Since it is static const all should be binary-exact
immutable copies.
Plese also comment if I am missing or missunderstanding something.
Your question sort of has two parts. What does the standard say? And why is it so?
For a static member of type const std::string, it is required to be defined outside the class specifier and have one definition in one of the translation units. This is part of the One Definition Rule, and is specified in clause 3 of the C++ standard.
But why?
The problem is that an object with static storage duration needs unique static storage in the final program image, so it needs to be linked from one particular translation unit. The class specifier doesn't have a home in one translation unit, it just defines the type (which is required to be identically defined in all translation units where it is used).
The reason a constant integral doesn't need storage, is that it is used by the compiler as a constant expression and inlined at point of use. It never makes it to the program image.
However a complex type, like a std::string, with static storage duration need storage, even if they are const. This is because they may need to be dynamically initialized (have their constructor called before the entry to main).
You could argue that the compiler should store information about objects with static storage duration in each translation unit where they are used, and then the linker should merge these definitions at link-time into one object in the program image. My guess for why this isn't done, is that it would require too much intelligence from the linker.
I was interested to note that C++ (VSVC++ 2008 specifically) lets me declare a struct inline in a method.
e.g:
MyClass::method()
{
struct test{ int x;};
test t = {99};
}
My question is, how does this declaration work internally, and specifically does it have any negative performance implications?
how does this declaration work internally?
Exactly like a declaration at namespace scope, except that the name is only visible within the scope of the block it's declared in (in this case, the function body). UPDATE: as #Nawaz points out, there are one or two extra restrictions that apply to local classes: they cannot have static data members, and (in C++03, but not C++11) they can't be used as template type arguments.
does it have any negative performance implications?
No, apart from its scope (which only affects whether or not the code compiles), it is identical to any other class definition.
The main difference from defining the type inside the function scope or outside of it is, well, the scope. That is, if it is defined inside the function it will not be accessible outside of the function.
There are other differences though (at least in C++03, I have not rechecked C++11), you cannot have a static member or a template member in a local class. You cannot use that local class as argument to a template either (this limitation has been removed in C++11), and IIRC this is because the local class has internal linkage (rather than external for a namespace level class), and templates required the arguments to be of external linkage.
What is the difference between the static keyword in C and C++?
The static keyword serves the same purposes in C and C++.
When used at file level (outside of a function), it sets the visibility of the item it's applied to. Static items are not visible outside of their compilation unit (e.g., to the linker). Their duration is the same as the duration of the program.
These file-level items (functions and data) should be static unless there's a specific need to access them from outside (and there's almost never a need to give direct access to data since that breaks the central tenet of encapsulation).
If (as your comment to the question indicates) this is the only use of static you're concerned with then, no, there is no difference between C and C++.
When used within a function, it sets the duration of the item. Again, the duration is the same as the program and the item continues to exist between invocations of that function.
It does not affect the visibility of that item since it's visible only within the function. An example is a random number generator that needs to keep its seed value between invocations but doesn't want that value visible to other functions.
C++ has one more use, static within a class. When used there, it becomes a single class variable that's common across all objects of that class. One classic example is to store the number of objects that have been instantiated for a given class.
As others have pointed out, the use of file-level static has been deprecated in favour of unnamed namespaces. However, I believe it'll be a cold day in a certain warm place before it's actually removed from the language - there's just too much code using it at the moment. And ISO C have only just gotten around to removing gets() despite the amount of time we've all known it was a dangerous function.
And even though it's deprecated, that doesn't change its semantics now.
The use of static at the file scope to restrict access to the current translation unit is deprecated in C++, but still acceptable in C.
Instead, use an unnamed namespace
namespace
{
int file_scope_x;
}
Variables declared this way are only available within the file, just as if they were declared static.
The main reason for the deprecation is to remove one of the several overloaded meanings of the static keyword.
Originally, it meant that the variable, such as in a function, would be given storage for the lifetime of the program in an area for such variables, and not stored on the stack as is usual for function local variables.
Then the keyword was overloaded to apply to file scope linkage. It's not desirable to make up new keywords as needed, because they might break existing code. So this one was used again with a different meaning without causing conflicts, because a variable declared as static can't be both inside a function and at the top level, and functions didn't have the modifier before. (The storage connotation is totally lost when referring to functions, as they are not stored anywhere.)
When classes came along in C++ (and in Java and C#) the keyword was used yet again, but the meaning is at least closer to the original intention. Variables declared this way are stored in a global area, as opposed to on the stack as for function variables, or on the heap as for object members. Because variables cannot be both at the top level and inside a class definition, extra meaning can be unambiguously attached to class variables. They can only be referenced via the class name or from within an object of that class.
It has the same meaning in both languages.
But C++ adds classes. In the context of a class (and thus a struct) it has the extra meaning of making the method/variable class members rather members of the object.
class Plop
{
static int x; // This is a member of the class not an instance.
public:
static int getX() // method is a member of the class.
{
return x;
}
};
int Plop::x = 5;
Note that the use of static to mean "file scope" (aka namespace scope) is only deoprecated by the C++ Standard for objects, not for functions. In other words,:
// foo.cpp
static int x = 0; // deprecated
static int f() { return 1; } // not deprecated
To quote Annex D of the Standard:
The use of the static keyword is
deprecated when declaring objects in
namespace scope.
You can not declare a static variable inside structure in C... But allowed in Cpp with the help of scope resolution operator.
Also in Cpp static function can access only static variables but in C static function can have static and non static variables...😊