static const variables in main()

[Michael Klatt]

Is there any practical difference between a local variable in main()
declared 'const' and one declared 'static const'?

int main()
{
static const int i1(0);
const int i2(0);
return 0;
}

[Gianni Mariani]

Michael Klatt wrote:

Is there any practical difference between a local variable in main()
declared 'const' and one declared 'static const'?

int main()
{
static const int i1(0);
const int i2(0);
return 0;
}

Not with int but for non POD types, the difference is when the
destructor is called.

[red floyd]

Gianni Mariani wrote:

Michael Klatt wrote:

Is there any practical difference between a local variable in main()
declared 'const' and one declared 'static const'?

int main()
{
static const int i1(0);
const int i2(0);
return 0;
}

Not with int but for non POD types, the difference is when the
destructor is called.

Wouldn't it make a diff if main() was called recursively?

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* red floyd:

Gianni Mariani wrote:

Michael Klatt wrote:

Is there any practical difference between a local variable in main()
declared 'const' and one declared 'static const'?

int main()
{
static const int i1(0);
const int i2(0);
return 0;
}

Not with int but for non POD types, the difference is when the
destructor is called.

Wouldn't it make a diff if main() was called recursively?

Not allowed.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[red floyd]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* red floyd:

Gianni Mariani wrote:

Michael Klatt wrote:
Is there any practical difference between a local variable in main()
declared 'const' and one declared 'static const'?

int main()
{
static const int i1(0);
const int i2(0);
return 0;
}
Not with int but for non POD types, the difference is when the
destructor is called.

Wouldn't it make a diff if main() was called recursively?

Not allowed.

Thanks, Alf... couldn't remember if recursion into main was allowed
(don't have a copy of the standard).

[Thomas Matthews]

Michael Klatt wrote:

Is there any practical difference between a local variable in main()
declared 'const' and one declared 'static const'?

int main()
{
static const int i1(0);
const int i2(0);
return 0;
}

In one of my compilers, there was a huge difference between
a static const and a const as far as an array went.

With the static const array declaration, the compiler knows
that there is only one instance and can optimize away. With
the const array declaration, the compiler was actually copying
the const data to a temporary local variable that it created.

Since these are integers, the above point may be moot. Your
best bet is to look at the assembly language generated by
the compiler and see what the difference really is.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c++/faq.html
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* red floyd:

Gianni Mariani wrote:

Michael Klatt wrote:
Is there any practical difference between a local variable in main()
declared 'const' and one declared 'static const'?

int main()
{
static const int i1(0);
const int i2(0);
return 0;
}
Not with int but for non POD types, the difference is when the
destructor is called.

Wouldn't it make a diff if main() was called recursively?

Not allowed.

why not?

rlc

[Robert Bauck Hamar]

* Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* red floyd:

Wouldn't it make a diff if main() was called recursively?

Not allowed.

why not?

Because the standard sais so:

From annex C, Clause 3.6:
Main cannot be called recursively and cannot have its address taken
Rationale: The main function may require special acions.
--
Robert Bauck Hamar