tags:

views:

328

answers:

9

I want to define a constant in C++ be visiable in several source files. I can image the following ways to define it in header file:

  1. #define GLOBAL_CONST_VAR 0xFF
  2. int GLOBAL_CONST_VAR = 0xFF;
  3. Some function returing the value (e.g. int get_GLOBAL_CONST_VAR())
  4. enum { GLOBAL_CONST_VAR = 0xFF; }
  5. const int GLOBAL_CONST_VAR = 0xFF;
  6. extern const int GLOBAL_CONST_VAR; and in one source file const int GLOBAL_CONST_VAR = 0xFF;

Option (1) - is defenetly not option you would like to use

Option (2) - defining instance of the variable in each object file using the header file

Option (3) - IMO is over killing in most cases

Option (4) - in many cases maybe not good since enum has no concreate type (C++0X will add possibility to define the type)

So in most cases I need to choose between (5) and (6). My questions:

  1. What do you preffer (5) or (6)?
  2. Why (5) is ok, while (2) is not?
+6  A: 

(5) says exactly what you want to say. Plus it lets the compiler optimize it away most of the time. (6) on the other hand won't let the compiler ever optimize it away because the compiler doesn't know if you'll change it eventually or not.

Blindy
OTOH, 5 is technically illegal as a violation of the ODR. Most compilers will ignore it, however.
Joel
Eh, I prefer to think of it as not having defined anything at all, I just told the compiler to give a pretty name to a number. For all intents and purposes that's what (5) is, which means no overhead at runtime.
Blindy
Is (5) a violation of the ODR? If it is, then (6) is preferable. Why does the compiler _"not know if you'll change it"_ in the case of (6)? `extern const int ...` and `const int ...` are both constant are they not?
D.Shawley
AFAIK, between 5) and 6), only 6) is allowed when the type of the constant is not int-based.
Klaim
Oh oops, I missed the const in (6).
Blindy
No ODR violation if you add static: `static const int Global = 0xFF;`. This way each compilation unit get "private copy" of Global which is optimized away.
sbk
There is no ODR violation, constant objects are static by default.
avakar
@avakar: The term static in C++ usually refers to the life-time of objects. I'd prefer to speak of "internal linkage" in this case. I realize that static is overloaded and can affect linkage. But in C++ we don't need static to control linkage because we have const and anonymous namespaces.
sellibitze
+5  A: 

If it's going to be a constant then you should mark it as a constant - that's why 2 is bad in my opinion.

The compiler can use the const nature of the value to expand some of the maths, and indeed other operations that use the value.

The choice between 5 and 6 - hmm; 5 just feels better to me.

In 6) the value is unnecessarily detached from it's declaration.

I typically would have one or more of these headers that only defines constants etc within them, and then no other 'clever' stuff - nice lightweight headers that can easily be included anywhere.

Andras Zoltan
(6) isn't unnecessary detachment, it's an intentional choice. If you have a lot of constants that are large, you waste a lot of space in the executable if you don't declare them as in (6). The can happen in math libraries... the waste may be under 100k but even that is important sometimes. (Some compilers have other ways to get around this, I think MSVC has a "once" attribute, or something similar.)
Dan Olson
With (5) you can't be really sure that it'll remain const (you could always cast away the constness). This is why I would still prefer the enum type.
fmuecke
@Dan Olson - that is a very good point - My answer was based on the fact that the type involved here is an int; but when dealing with bigger values the extern declaration is indeed a better plan.
Andras Zoltan
@fmuecke - Yes, you're right - in which case the enum value does prevent this. But does that mean we should always protect our values from writes in this way? If a programmer wants to abuse code, there's so many areas where a (target_type *)((void *) and indeed ourselves, no?
Andras Zoltan
+2  A: 
const int GLOBAL_CONST_VAR = 0xFF;

because it is a constant!

anon
+7  A: 

Definitely go with option 5 - it's type safe and allows compiler to optimize (don't take address of that variable :) Also if it's in a header - stick it into a namespace to avoid polluting the global scope:

// header.hpp
namespace constants
{
    const int GLOBAL_CONST_VAR = 0xFF;
    // ... other related constants

} // namespace constants

// source.cpp - use it
#include <header.hpp>
int value = constants::GLOBAL_CONST_VAR;
Nikolai N Fetissov
+1 for the namespace tip. thx.
mre
A: 
#define GLOBAL_CONST_VAR 0xFF // this is C code not C++
int GLOBAL_CONST_VAR = 0xFF; // it is not constant and maybe not compilled
Some function returing the value (e.g. int get_LOBAL_CONST_VAR()) // maybe but exists better desision
enum { LOBAL_CONST_VAR = 0xFF; } // not needed, endeed, for only one constant (enum elms is a simple int, but with secial enumeration)
const int GLOBAL_CONST_VAR = 0xFF; // it is the best
extern const int GLOBAL_CONST_VAR; //some compiller doesn't understand this
den bardadym
A: 

It depends on your requirements. (5) is the best for most normal usage, but often results in the constant taking up storage space in every object file. (6) can get around this in situations where it's important.

(4) is also a decent choice if your priority is guaranteeing that storage space is never allocated, but it only works for integral constants of course.

Dan Olson
A: 

I prefer #3. It encapsulates far better IMO.

Tim
A: 

To answer your second question:

(2) is illegal because it violates the One Definition Rule. It defines GLOBAL_CONST_VAR in every file where it's included, i.e. more than once. (5) is legal because it's not subject to the One Definition Rule. Each GLOBAL_CONST_VAR is a separate definition, local to that file where it's included. All those definitions share the same name and value of course, but their addresses could differ.

MSalters
+1  A: 

(5) is "better" than (6) because it defines GLOBAL_CONST_VAR as an Integral Constant Expression (ICE) in all translation units. For example, you will be able to use it as array size and as case label in all translation units. In case of (6) GLOBAL_CONST_VAR will be an ICE only in that translation unit where it is defined and only after the point of definition. In other translation units it won't work as ICE.

However, keep in mind that (5) gives GLOBAL_CONST_VAR internal linkage, meaning that the "address identity" of GLOBAL_CONST_VAR will be different in each translation unit, i.e. the &GLOBAL_CONST_VAR will give you a different pointer value in each translation unit. In most usage cases this doesn't matter, but if you'll need a constant object that has consistent global "address identity", then you'd have to go with (6), sacrificing the ICE-ness of the constant in the process.

Also, when the ICE-ness of the constant is not an issue (not an integral type) and the size of the type grows larger (not a scalar type), then (6) usually becomes a better approach than (5).

(2) is not OK because the GLOBAL_CONST_VAR in (2) has external linkage by default. If you put it in header file, you'll usually end up with multiple definitions of GLOBAL_CONST_VAR, which is an error. const objects in C++ have internal linkage by default, which is why (5) works (and which is why, as I said above, you get a separate, independent GLOBAL_CONST_VAR in each translation unit).

AndreyT