A question on incomplete definitions

[ark]

Hello group,
Could you help me with this:

static const int x;
............ something .............
static const int x = 17;

It looks perfectly legal to me but MSVC/C++ 6.0 gives, on the first line,
"warning C4132: 'x' : const object should be initialized"
yet generates correct code.

What is correct - the code or the compiler? If the code, is it known what
compilers choke on this and how hard?

Thanks,
Ark

[Malcolm]

"ark" <ar****@comcast .net> wrote in message

static const int x;
This is a tentative forward declaration of x.
........... something .............
static const int x = 17;
This is the declaration of x
It looks perfectly legal to me but MSVC/C++ 6.0 gives, on the first
line, "warning C4132: 'x' : const object should be initialized"
yet generates correct code.

What is correct - the code or the compiler? If the code, is it known
what compilers choke on this and how hard?

The compiler is allowed to give warnings for code which is correct but looks
suspicious. Here you are using a little-used construct with a const, so it
wonders if you know what you are doing.

I would also give a warning, since I suspect that you don't need a tentative
forward declaration at all of a static const integer in your code. However I
may be wrong.

[Alex]

ark <ar****@comcast .net> wrote:

Hello group,
Could you help me with this: static const int x;
You declare and define x, with the implicit value of 0.
However, since the object is const, you won't have a chance
to change its value. AFAIK, this construct is valid, but
is largely meaningless.
........... something .............
static const int x = 17;
You redeclare and redefine x with the value of 17. This
is obviously incorrect because the x identifier already
exists and has storage.
It looks perfectly legal to me but MSVC/C++ 6.0 gives, on the first line,
"warning C4132: 'x' : const object should be initialized"
yet generates correct code.

This is a friendly warning that says that your first line
doesn't make much sense. It is probably not a required
diagnostic.

Alex

[ark]

"Malcolm" <ma*****@55bank .freeserve.co.u k> wrote in message
news:br******** **@newsg1.svr.p ol.co.uk...

<snip> I would also give a warning, since I suspect that you don't need a tentative forward declaration at all of a static const integer in your code. However I may be wrong.

Imagine, e.g., a header file that #define's useful thing about x (which is
really likely to be a struct of some sort). Then the header needs a
"tentative forward declaration" of x, and here it is useful IMHO.
Sorry for wrong terminology,
- Ark

[ark]

"Alex" <al*******@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:br******** ****@ID-190529.news.uni-berlin.de...

ark <ar****@comcast .net> wrote:

Hello group,
Could you help me with this:

static const int x;

You declare and define x, with the implicit value of 0.
However, since the object is const, you won't have a chance
to change its value. AFAIK, this construct is valid, but
is largely meaningless.

........... something .............
static const int x = 17;

You redeclare and redefine x with the value of 17. This
is obviously incorrect because the x identifier already
exists and has storage.

It looks perfectly legal to me but MSVC/C++ 6.0 gives, on the first line, "warning C4132: 'x' : const object should be initialized"
yet generates correct code.

This is a friendly warning that says that your first line
doesn't make much sense. It is probably not a required
diagnostic.

Alex

I am not sure your analysis is correct; see Malcolm's posting above.
- Ark

[Alan Balmer]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:01:25 -0000, "Malcolm"
<ma*****@55bank .freeserve.co.u k> wrote:

static const int x;

This is a tentative forward declaration of x.

How does the compiler distinguish this from a normal declaration with
default initialization?

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************* ***********@att .net

[Ben Pfaff]

Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> writes:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:01:25 -0000, "Malcolm"
<ma*****@55bank .freeserve.co.u k> wrote:

static const int x;

This is a tentative forward declaration of x.

How does the compiler distinguish this from a normal declaration with
default initialization?

See C99 6.9.2#2:

2 A declaration of an identifier for an object that has file
scope without an initializer, and without a storage-class
specifier or with the storage-class specifier static,
constitutes a tentative definition. If a translation unit
contains one or more tentative definitions for an
identifier, and the translation unit contains no external
definition for that identifier, then the behavior is exactly
as if the translation unit contains a file scope declaration
of that identifier, with the composite type as of the end of
the translation unit, with an initializer equal to 0.

--
"The way I see it, an intelligent person who disagrees with me is
probably the most important person I'll interact with on any given
day."
--Billy Chambless

[ark]

"Ben Pfaff" <bl*@cs.stanfor d.edu> wrote in message
news:87******** ****@pfaff.stan ford.edu...

Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> writes:
<snip> See C99 6.9.2#2:

2 A declaration of an identifier for an object that has file
scope without an initializer, and without a storage-class
specifier or with the storage-class specifier static,
constitutes a tentative definition. If a translation unit
contains one or more tentative definitions for an
identifier, and the translation unit contains no external
definition for that identifier, then the behavior is exactly
as if the translation unit contains a file scope declaration
of that identifier, with the composite type as of the end of
the translation unit, with an initializer equal to 0.

--
"The way I see it, an intelligent person who disagrees with me is
probably the most important person I'll interact with on any given
day."
--Billy Chambless

So... I can do it only in C99, not in classic C (90?) or whatever was
before?
What about K&R?
Thanks for all help,
- Ark

[Joe Wright]

ark wrote:

"Alex" <al*******@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:br******** ****@ID-190529.news.uni-berlin.de...

ark <ar****@comcast .net> wrote:

Hello group,
Could you help me with this:

static const int x;

You declare and define x, with the implicit value of 0.
However, since the object is const, you won't have a chance
to change its value. AFAIK, this construct is valid, but
is largely meaningless.

........... something .............
static const int x = 17;

You redeclare and redefine x with the value of 17. This
is obviously incorrect because the x identifier already
exists and has storage.

It looks perfectly legal to me but MSVC/C++ 6.0 gives, on the first line, "warning C4132: 'x' : const object should be initialized"
yet generates correct code.

This is a friendly warning that says that your first line
doesn't make much sense. It is probably not a required
diagnostic.

Alex

I am not sure your analysis is correct; see Malcolm's posting above.
- Ark

Alex may be more correct that Malcolm. The whole point of the const
qualifier is that its object should not be modified without diagnostic.
You noticed that..

const int x;

yielding a diagnostic because you missed your only 'legal' chance to
define the value of x. It is not clear that the diagnostic is required
but x clearly useless in this case. Further down in your code..

const int x = 17;

redifines x and assigns a value to it. The redifinition is the error
here and requires a diagnostic. Assigning 17 to x here is probably ok.
--
Joe Wright http://www.jw-wright.com
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---

[Ben Pfaff]

"ark" <ar****@comcast .net> writes:

"Ben Pfaff" <bl*@cs.stanfor d.edu> wrote in message
news:87******** ****@pfaff.stan ford.edu...

Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> writes:
<snip>

See C99 6.9.2#2:

2 A declaration of an identifier for an object that has file
scope without an initializer, and without a storage-class
specifier or with the storage-class specifier static,
constitutes a tentative definition. If a translation unit
contains one or more tentative definitions for an
identifier, and the translation unit contains no external
definition for that identifier, then the behavior is exactly
as if the translation unit contains a file scope declaration
of that identifier, with the composite type as of the end of
the translation unit, with an initializer equal to 0.

So... I can do it only in C99, not in classic C (90?) or whatever was
before?

There is similar text in C90 if I recall correctly. I generally
quote from C99 because I have an accurate electronic
transcription.
What about K&R? Thanks for all help, - Ark

K&R didn't have the concept of a tentative definition as far as I
know.
--
"What is appropriate for the master is not appropriate for the novice.
You must understand the Tao before transcending structure."
--The Tao of Programming