C++ static integer class constants...
John Ratliff
webmaster@technoplaza.net
Mon Oct 17 20:04:00 GMT 2005
Okay. I no longer think g++ 3.3 is wrong according to the standard, but I
still think it is a bug. Not because it violates the standard, but because
it is inconsistent with itself.
Take the following example program:
#include <iostream>
class foo {
public:
static const unsigned int SRAM_SIZE = 0x2000;
static const int CHECKSUM_OFFSET = 0x8;
static const int CHECKSUM_OFFSET2 = 0x1FF8;
foo();
unsigned char getChecksum(bool redundant = false) const;
private:
char sram[SRAM_SIZE];
};
const int foo::CHECKSUM_OFFSET;
const int foo::CHECKSUM_OFFSET2;
foo::foo() {
sram[CHECKSUM_OFFSET] = 1;
sram[CHECKSUM_OFFSET2] = 2;
}
unsigned char foo::getChecksum(bool redundant) const {
int offset = (redundant ? CHECKSUM_OFFSET2 : CHECKSUM_OFFSET);
return sram[offset];
}
int main(int, char **) {
foo f;
unsigned char c1 = f.getChecksum();
unsigned char c2 = f.getChecksum(true);
std::cout << "c1 = " << static_cast<int>(c1) << '\n';
std::cout << "c2 = " << static_cast<int>(c2) << '\n';
return 0;
}
This program will is a conforming program according to the standard and
works just fine in g++ 3.3.
But, if you replace the getChecksum method with
return sram[redundant ? CHECKSUM_OFFSET2 : CHECKSUM_OFFSET];
then you can safely remove the namespace scope definition. It is not
technically a conforming program then according to the standard, but g++
optimizes it here to be a compile-time constant which didn't need external
linkage. The program would be wrong, but g++'s behavior with regard to
optimization is inconsistent with itself. If it's going to optimize, it
should optimize whether you store the constant in a temporary like offset
using the ternary operator or not. You can also replace getChecksum with
unsigned char foo::getChecksum(bool redundant) const {
int offset = CHECKSUM_OFFSET;
if (redundant) offset = CHECKSUM_OFFSET2;
return sram[offset];
}
and g++ will optimize it into a compile-time constant not requiring external
linkage. Something about the combination of the int offset and the ternary
operator assignment g++ 3.3 doesn't handle the way it handles everything
else.
Since the 3.3 series has been closed, I won't be filing a bug report, and
maybe the gcc team wouldn't even consider this a bug, but the inconsistency
is present, standards conformance notwithstanding.
--John Ratliff
More information about the Gcc-help
mailing list