"static const int" versus "const int"
 

Hello,

I would like to ask what the difference is between
"static const int" versus "const int". I mean of course
the former goes in the static data segment of code
whereas the latter is pushed on the stack, but since
a const does not change it might as well be declared
static, but to what advantage.

What I am asking is how to decide whether to use
"static const int" versus "const int".

Thanks,

John Goche

Re: "static const int" versus "const int"
 

On 11/11/2011 11:39 AM, John Goche wrote:
> I would like to ask what the difference is between
> "static const int" versus "const int". I mean of course
> the former goes in the static data segment of code
> whereas the latter is pushed on the stack, but since
> a const does not change it might as well be declared
> static, but to what advantage.
>
> What I am asking is how to decide whether to use
> "static const int" versus "const int".

In what scope? It matters a lot.

V
--
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

Re: "static const int" versus "const int"
 

On Nov 11, 6:31*pm, Victor Bazarov <v.baza...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/11/2011 11:39 AM, John Goche wrote:
>
> > I would like to ask what the difference is between
> > "static const int" versus "const int". I mean of course
> > the former goes in the static data segment of code
> > whereas the latter is pushed on the stack, but since
> > a const does not change it might as well be declared
> > static, but to what advantage.
>
> > What I am asking is how to decide whether to use
> > "static const int" versus "const int".
>
> In what scope? *It matters a lot.

I forgot to mention: inside the block scope
of the body of a function.

Also, as a separate question, what's wrong with

const int foo = 1;

const int bar = foo + 1;

The compiler replies with: error: initializer element is not constant

Of course I could use the preprocessor, but the preprocessor is
not very popular in C++ as it is in C, so what should I do, compose
a function:

const int bar() {
return foo + 1;
}

Seems silly to me.

Thanks,

John Goche

Re: "static const int" versus "const int"
 

On Nov 11, 7:39*pm, Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:

> > const int foo = 1;
>
> > const int bar = foo + 1;
>
> > The compiler replies with: error: initializer element is not constant
>
> That code is not ill-formed so you are either a) lying or b) have a
> broken compiler.
>
> /Leigh

In this case the code was declared outside of any function as a
global variable, and then I get the error, otherwise you are right
it would compile fine inside a function.

Anyways, I still don't have an answer to the two questions I posted.

Thank you for your replies though,

Regards,

John Goche

Re: "static const int" versus "const int"
 

On 11/11/2011 1:30 PM, John Goche wrote:
> On Nov 11, 6:31 pm, Victor Bazarov<v.baza...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2011 11:39 AM, John Goche wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to ask what the difference is between
>>> "static const int" versus "const int". I mean of course
>>> the former goes in the static data segment of code
>>> whereas the latter is pushed on the stack, but since
>>> a const does not change it might as well be declared
>>> static, but to what advantage.
>>
>>> What I am asking is how to decide whether to use
>>> "static const int" versus "const int".
>>
>> In what scope? It matters a lot.
>
> I forgot to mention: inside the block scope
> of the body of a function.

There is no difference from the behavior POV. Code-generation-wise, an
automatic constant can easily be replaced by the compiler with its value
when used in an expression (so no storage is usually wasted on it at
all), and a static object will cause some storage allocation and
possibly the use of that storage when the variable is used in an
expression. Should you care about that? I don't know.

> [..]

V
--
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask