Initializing const member within class declaration in C++ - c++

In PHP and C# the constants can be initialized as they are declared:
class Calendar3
{
const int value1 = 12;
const double value2 = 0.001;
}
I have the following C++ declaration of a functor which is used with another class to compare two math vectors:
struct equal_vec
{
bool operator() (const Vector3D& a, const Vector3D& b) const
{
Vector3D dist = b - a;
return ( dist.length2() <= tolerance );
}
static const float tolerance = 0.001;
};
This code compiled without problems with g++. Now in C++0x mode (-std=c++0x) the g++ compiler outputs an error message:
error: ‘constexpr’ needed for in-class initialization of static data member ‘tolerance’ of non-integral type
I know I can define and initialize this static const member outside of the class definition. Also, a non-static constant data member can be initialized in the initializer list of a constructor.
But is there any way to initialize a constant within class declaration just like it is possible in PHP or C#?
Update
I used static keyword just because it was possible to initialize such constants within the class declaration in g++. I just need a way to initialize a constant in a class declaration no matter if it declared as static or not.

In C++11, non-static data members, static constexpr data members, and static const data members of integral or enumeration type may be initialized in the class declaration. e.g.
struct X {
int i=5;
const float f=3.12f;
static const int j=42;
static constexpr float g=9.5f;
};
In this case, the i member of all instances of class X is initialized to 5 by the compiler-generated constructor, and the f member is initialized to 3.12. The static const data member j is initialized to 42, and the static constexpr data member g is initialized to 9.5.
Since float and double are not of integral or enumeration type, such members must either be constexpr, or non-static in order for the initializer in the class definition to be permitted.
Prior to C++11, only static const data members of integral or enumeration type could have initializers in the class definition.

Initializing static member variables other than const int types is not standard C++ prior C++11. The gcc compiler will not warn you about this (and produce useful code nonetheless) unless you specify the -pedantic option. You then should get an error similiar to:
const.cpp:3:36: error: floating-point literal cannot appear in a constant-expression
const.cpp:3:36: warning: ISO C++ forbids initialization of member constant ‘tolerance’ of non-integral type ‘const float’ [-pedantic]
The reason for this is that the C++ standard does not specifiy how floating point should be implemented and is left to the processor. To get around this and other limitations constexpr was introduced.

Yes. Just add the constexpr keyword as the error says.

I ran into real problems with this, because I need the same code to compile with differing versions of g++ (the GNU C++ compiler). So I had to use a macro to see which version of the compiler was being used, and then act accordingly, like so
#if __GNUC__ > 5
#define GNU_CONST_STATIC_FLOAT_DECLARATION constexpr
#else
#define GNU_CONST_STATIC_FLOAT_DECLARATION const
#endif
GNU_CONST_STATIC_FLOAT_DECLARATION static double yugeNum=5.0;
This will use 'const' for everything before g++ version 6.0.0 and then use 'constexpr' for g++ version 6.0.0 and above. That's a guess at the version where the change takes place, because frankly I didn't notice this until g++ version 6.2.1. To do it right you may have to look at the minor version and patch number of g++, so see
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Common-Predefined-Macros.html
for the details on the available macros.
With gnu, you could also stick with using 'const' everywhere and then compile with the -fpermissive flag, but that gives warnings and I like my stuff to compile cleanly.
Not great, because it's specific to gnu compilers, butI suspect you could do similar with other compilers.

If you only need it in the one method you can declare it locally static:
struct equal_vec
{
bool operator() (const Vector3D& a, const Vector3D& b) const
{
static const float tolerance = 0.001f;
Vector3D dist = b - a;
return ( dist.length2() <= tolerance );
}
};

Related

C++ and C++11 class static member, double should use "constexpr" while int can be "const", why?

A structure C defined several static const members like this:
Code is like below:
#include<stdio.h>
struct C{
static int i;
static const int j=1;
static constexpr double d=1;
static const double d1=1.0;
};
int main(){
return 0;
}
Compilation will lead to error:
$g++ testStatic.cpp -std=c++11
testStatic.cpp:6:25: error: in-class initializer for static data member of
type 'const double' requires 'constexpr' specifier
[-Wstatic-float-init]
static const double d1=1.0;
^ ~~~
testStatic.cpp:6:5: note: add 'constexpr'
static const double d1=1.0;
^
constexpr
1 error generated.
Why so weird
Why static int can be const,double should be constexpr,what's the rational
const follows the original language specification defined in C++98 and C++03. It was generally disallowed to supply an in-class initalizers for static const members in C++98. The possibility to do so for static const objects of integral and enum types in C++98 was part of special treatment given to these types.
constexpris a new feature introduced in C++11. It is designed differently and works uniformly for all types.
So, you can just use constexpr for both integer and floating point types and forget about any non-uniformities.
If you continue to use const in such contexts, you will have to deal with C++98 legacy. However, C++17 will introduce inline variables, which should also make it possible to use in-class initializers for inline static const objects of any type.

Wrong static const initialization that compiles and works

As far as I know, you can only initialize static const members in the same line of their declaration if they are integral types . However, I was still able to initialize and use some static const doubles:
// compiles and works, values are indeed doubles
struct Foo1{
static const double A=2.5;
static const double B=3.2;
static const double C=1.7;
};
// compiles, but values are cast to int
struct Foo2{
static const int A=2;
static const int B=3;
static const double C=B/A; //becomes 1
};
// does not compile, Foo3::B cannot appear in a constant-expression
struct Foo3{
static const int A=2;
static const double B=3;
static const double C=A/B;
};
// does not compile, a cast to a type other than an integral or enumeration
// cannot appear in a constant-expression
struct Foo4{
static const int A=2;
static const int B=3;
static const double C=(double)A/B;
};
Foo2 compiles but Foo2::C becomes 1, so maybe it is treated as an int as it is numerically one. Foo3 and Foo4 don't even compile, as expected. However, I don't understand why Foo1 both compiles and works correctly. Is this specific usage accepted? Is it because of some optimization? ( I've tried using -O1 and -O0)
Note: using GNU 5.2.0 with cmake and setting the standard to C++98. Switching to C++11 works fine ( that is, does not compile and asks to switch those members to constexpr).
The Foo1 case is indeed non-conforming and if we build using -std=c++98 -pedantic gcc will warn as follows (see it live):
error: floating-point literal cannot appear in a constant-expression
static const double A=2.5;
^
warning: ISO C++ forbids initialization of member constant 'Foo1::A' of non-integral type 'const double' [-Wpedantic]
While compiling without -pedantic does not yield any error or warning (see it live)
So this must be an extension and if we use clang using -std=C++98 -pedantic we see this message:
warning: in-class initializer for static data member of type 'const double' is a GNU extension [-Wgnu-static-float-init]
static const double A=2.5;
^ ~~~
which seems to confirm this is an extension.
This restriction on floating point was kept in C++11 to remain compatible with C++03 and to encourage consistent use of constexpr see: Constant expression initializer for static class member of type double.
This is also the case for Foo2 initializing C is allowed as an extension, the result of the division will be int since the type of the result depends on the type of the operands and does not depend on what you assign it to.
Update
This is a depreciated extension:
G++ allows static data members of const floating-point type to be declared with an initializer in a class definition. The standard only allows initializers for static members of const integral types and const enumeration types so this extension has been deprecated and will be removed from a future version.
There is a more detailed gcc bug report that discusses the validity of the extension and other related issues around it.
It seemed odd that using -pedantic was sufficient by itself to turn this into an error, there is a gcc bug report that covers that.

Is, or is not, in-class initialization of static variables C++ 11 compliant? [duplicate]

Why can't I initialize non-const static member or static array in a class?
class A
{
static const int a = 3;
static int b = 3;
static const int c[2] = { 1, 2 };
static int d[2] = { 1, 2 };
};
int main()
{
A a;
return 0;
}
the compiler issues following errors:
g++ main.cpp
main.cpp:4:17: error: ISO C++ forbids in-class initialization of non-const static member ‘b’
main.cpp:5:26: error: a brace-enclosed initializer is not allowed here before ‘{’ token
main.cpp:5:33: error: invalid in-class initialization of static data member of non-integral type ‘const int [2]’
main.cpp:6:20: error: a brace-enclosed initializer is not allowed here before ‘{’ token
main.cpp:6:27: error: invalid in-class initialization of static data member of non-integral type ‘int [2]’
I have two questions:
Why can't I initialize static data members in class?
Why can't I initialize static arrays in class, even the const array?
Why I can't initialize static data members in class?
The C++ standard allows only static constant integral or enumeration types to be initialized inside the class. This is the reason a is allowed to be initialized while others are not.
Reference:
C++03 9.4.2 Static data members
§4
If a static data member is of const integral or const enumeration type, its declaration in the class definition can specify a constant-initializer which shall be an integral constant expression (5.19). In that case, the member can appear in integral constant expressions. The member shall still be defined in a namespace scope if it is used in the program and the namespace scope definition shall not contain an initializer.
What are integral types?
C++03 3.9.1 Fundamental types
§7
Types bool, char, wchar_t, and the signed and unsigned integer types are collectively called integral types.43) A synonym for integral type is integer type.
Footnote:
43) Therefore, enumerations (7.2) are not integral; however, enumerations can be promoted to int, unsigned int, long, or unsigned long, as specified in 4.5.
Workaround:
You could use the enum trick to initialize an array inside your class definition.
class A
{
static const int a = 3;
enum { arrsize = 2 };
static const int c[arrsize] = { 1, 2 };
};
Why does the Standard does not allow this?
Bjarne explains this aptly here:
A class is typically declared in a header file and a header file is typically included into many translation units. However, to avoid complicated linker rules, C++ requires that every object has a unique definition. That rule would be broken if C++ allowed in-class definition of entities that needed to be stored in memory as objects.
Why are only static const integral types & enums allowed In-class Initialization?
The answer is hidden in Bjarne's quote read it closely,
"C++ requires that every object has a unique definition. That rule would be broken if C++ allowed in-class definition of entities that needed to be stored in memory as objects."
Note that only static const integers can be treated as compile time constants. The compiler knows that the integer value will not change anytime and hence it can apply its own magic and apply optimizations, the compiler simply inlines such class members i.e, they are not stored in memory anymore, As the need of being stored in memory is removed, it gives such variables the exception to rule mentioned by Bjarne.
It is noteworthy to note here that even if static const integral values can have In-Class Initialization, taking address of such variables is not allowed. One can take the address of a static member if (and only if) it has an out-of-class definition.This further validates the reasoning above.
enums are allowed this because values of an enumerated type can be used where ints are expected.see citation above
How does this change in C++11?
C++11 relaxes the restriction to certain extent.
C++11 9.4.2 Static data members
§3
If a static data member is of const literal type, its declaration in the class definition can specify a brace-or-equal-initializer in which every initializer-clause that is an assignment-expression is a constant expression. A static data member of literal type can be declared in the class definition with the constexpr specifier; if so, its declaration shall specify a brace-or-equal-initializer in which every initializer-clause that is an assignment-expression is a constant expression. [ Note: In both these cases, the member may appear in constant expressions. —end note ] The member shall still be defined in a namespace scope if it is used in the program and the namespace scope definition shall not contain an initializer.
Also, C++11 will allow(§12.6.2.8) a non-static data member to be initialized where it is declared(in its class). This will mean much easy user semantics.
Note that these features have not yet been implemented in latest gcc 4.7, So you might still get compilation errors.
This seems a relict from the old days of simple linkers. You can use static variables in static methods as workaround:
// header.hxx
#include <vector>
class Class {
public:
static std::vector<int> & replacement_for_initialized_static_non_const_variable() {
static std::vector<int> Static {42, 0, 1900, 1998};
return Static;
}
};
int compilation_unit_a();
and
// compilation_unit_a.cxx
#include "header.hxx"
int compilation_unit_a() {
return Class::replacement_for_initialized_static_non_const_variable()[1]++;
}
and
// main.cxx
#include "header.hxx"
#include <iostream>
int main() {
std::cout
<< compilation_unit_a()
<< Class::replacement_for_initialized_static_non_const_variable()[1]++
<< compilation_unit_a()
<< Class::replacement_for_initialized_static_non_const_variable()[1]++
<< std::endl;
}
build:
g++ -std=gnu++0x -save-temps=obj -c compilation_unit_a.cxx
g++ -std=gnu++0x -o main main.cxx compilation_unit_a.o
run:
./main
The fact that this works (consistently, even if the class definition is included in different compilation units), shows that the linker today (gcc 4.9.2) is actually smart enough.
Funny: Prints 0123 on arm and 3210 on x86.
It's because there can only be one definition of A::a that all the translation units use.
If you performed static int a = 3; in a class in a header included in all a translation units then you'd get multiple definitions. Therefore, non out-of-line definition of a static is forcibly made a compiler error.
Using static inline or static const remedies this. static inline only concretises the symbol if it is used in the translation unit and ensures the linker only selects and leaves one copy if it's defined in multiple translation units due to it being in a comdat group. const at file scope makes the compiler never emit a symbol because it's always substituted immediately in the code unless extern is used, which is not permitted in a class.
One thing to note is static inline int b; is treated as a definition whereas static const int b or static const A b; are still treated as a declaration and must be defined out-of-line if you don't define it inside the class. Interestingly static constexpr A b; is treated as a definition, whereas static constexpr int b; is an error and must have an initialiser (this is because they now become definitions and like any const/constexpr definition at file scope, they require an initialiser which an int doesn't have but a class type does because it has an implicit = A() when it is a definition -- clang allows this but gcc requires you to explicitly initialise or it is an error. This is not a problem with inline instead). static const A b = A(); is not allowed and must be constexpr or inline in order to permit an initialiser for a static object with class type i.e to make a static member of class type more than a declaration. So yes in certain situations A a; is not the same as explicitly initialising A a = A(); (the former can be a declaration but if only a declaration is allowed for that type then the latter is an error. The latter can only be used on a definition. constexpr makes it a definition). If you use constexpr and specify a default constructor then the constructor will need to be constexpr
#include<iostream>
struct A
{
int b =2;
mutable int c = 3; //if this member is included in the class then const A will have a full .data symbol emitted for it on -O0 and so will B because it contains A.
static const int a = 3;
};
struct B {
A b;
static constexpr A c; //needs to be constexpr or inline and doesn't emit a symbol for A a mutable member on any optimisation level
};
const A a;
const B b;
int main()
{
std::cout << a.b << b.b.b;
return 0;
}
A static member is an outright file scope declaration extern int A::a; (which can only be made in the class and out of line definitions must refer to a static member in a class and must be definitions and cannot contain extern) whereas a non-static member is part of the complete type definition of a class and have the same rules as file scope declarations without extern. They are implicitly definitions. So int i[]; int i[5]; is a redefinition whereas static int i[]; int A::i[5]; isn't but unlike 2 externs, the compiler will still detect a duplicate member if you do static int i[]; static int i[5]; in the class.
I think it's to prevent you from mixing declarations and definitions. (Think about the problems that could occur if you include the file in multiple places.)
static variables are specific to a class . Constructors initialize attributes ESPECIALY for an instance.

static const double cannot have an in-class initializer. why is it so?

The problem with the following code is static member of type "const double" cannot have an in-class initializer. Why is applicable only for a 'const double'in the following code? Please help me.
class sample{
static const char mc = '?';
static const double md = 2.2;
static const bool mb = true;
};
const char sample::mc;
const double sample::md;
const bool sample::mb;
int main(){
}
The logic implemented by the C++03 language standard is based on the following rationale.
In C++ an initializer is a part of object definition. What you write inside the class for static members is actually only a declaration. So, formally speaking, specifying initializers for any static members directly inside the class is "incorrect". It is contrary to the general declaration/definition concepts of the language. Whatever static data you declare inside the class has to be defined later anyway. That's where you will have your chance to specify the initializers.
An exception from this rule was made for static integer constants, because such constants in C++ can form Integral Constant Expressions (ICEs). ICEs play an important role in the language, and in order for them to work as intended the values of integral constants have to be visible in all translation units. In order to make the value of some constant visible in all translation units, it has to be visible at the point of declaration. To achieve that the language allows specifying the initializer directly in class.
Additionally, on many hardware platforms constant integer operands can be embedded directly into the machine commands. Or the constant can be completely eliminated or replaced (like, for example, multiplication by 8 can be implemented as a shift by 3). In order to facilitate generation of machine code with embedded operands and/or various arithmetical optimizations it is important to have the values of integral constants visible in all translation units.
Non-integral types do not have any functionality similar to ICE. Also, hardware platforms do not normally allow embedding non-integral operands directly into the machine commands. For this reason the above "exception from the rules" does not extend to non-integral types. It would simply achieve nothing.
The compiler offered me to use constexpr instead of const:
static_consts.cpp:3:29: error: ‘constexpr’ needed for in-class initialization of static data member ‘const double sample::md’ of non-integral type [-fpermissive]
static_consts.cpp:7:22: error: ‘constexpr’ needed for in-class initialization of static data member ‘const double sample::md’ of non-integral type [-fpermissive]
I've just accepted the offer:
class sample{
static const char mc = '?';
static constexpr double md = 2.2;
static const bool mb = true;
};
const char sample::mc;
const bool sample::mb;
int main(){
}
And now it compiles just fine (C++11).
Pre-C++11, only const integral types could be directly initialized in the class definition. It's just a restriction imposed by the standard.
With C++11, this no longer applies.

How can I initialize an in-class floating point constant?

I've recently run into Visual C++ 2005 failing to initialize in class constants, having run into the ubiquitous error
"error C2864: ... : only static const integral data members can be initialized within a class"
from code similar to
class MyClass:
{
private:
static const double myConstant = 2.9768;
}
I've been able to figure out that non-integer types are the problem, and there are several ways to have integer constants, but I have not found a satisfactory work-around for defining constants scoped to a class. Is this type of declaration legal in later/other compilers?
In C++03, you have to initialize non-integral static constants outside the class definition:
struct Foo
{
static const double value;
};
const double Foo::value = 0.5;
In C++11, you can initialize arbitrary constexpressions from constant expressions inline:
struct Foo
{
static constexpr double value = 0.5;
};
You may or may not still have to provide a definition for the variable, depending on whether you require it elsewhere in your code (e.g. by taking its address).
Do it outside the class definition, in a source file (not a header, or you risk linker errors).
const double MyClass::myConstant = ..;
This behaviour is mandated by the C++ language standard. No legal workaround.
Take the initialization out of the header file and put this into your .cpp:
const double MyClass::myConstant = 2.9768;