Can't use object as a case label!

[JKop]

g++ test.cpp -ansi -pedantic -o test.exe
test.cpp: In function `int main()':
test.cpp:22: case label does not reduce to an integer constant

Why won't "operator unsigned int() const" do its job in this... case?!
class Blah
{
private:

unsigned int k;

public:

operator unsigned int() const
{
return k;
}
};

int main()
{
Blah aaa;
Blah bbb;

switch (aaa)
{
case bbb:
;
}
}
-JKop

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* JKop:

g++ test.cpp -ansi -pedantic -o test.exe
test.cpp: In function `int main()':
test.cpp:22: case label does not reduce to an integer constant

That's because you have used the name of an object as case label, instead
of using an integer expression as case label.

--
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?

[JKop]

Alf P. Steinbach posted:

* JKop:

g++ test.cpp -ansi -pedantic -o test.exe
test.cpp: In function `int main()': test.cpp:22: case label does not reduce to an integer constant
That's because you have used the name of an object as

case label, instead of using an integer expression as case label.

Ohh... I get it, it has to be a compile-time constant.

Even the following won't work!:

class Blah
{
private:

unsigned int k;

public:

Blah(unsigned int input) : k(input) {}

operator unsigned int() const
{
return k;
}
};

int main()
{
Blah aaa(87);
Blah const bbb(6);

switch (aaa)
{
case bbb:
;
}
}
Most likely as Blah isn't a POD...

-JKop

[Mike Wahler]

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:rh******************@news.indigo.ie...

Alf P. Steinbach posted:

* JKop:

g++ test.cpp -ansi -pedantic -o test.exe
test.cpp: In function `int main()': test.cpp:22: case label does not reduce to an integer constant
That's because you have used the name of an object as

case label, instead

of using an integer expression as case label.

Ohh... I get it, it has to be a compile-time constant.

No, it only needs to be an integer expression.

e.g.

int x = 42;
switch(x) /* 'x' is not a a compile-time constant */
{
}

Even the following won't work!:

class Blah
{
private:

unsigned int k;

public:

Blah(unsigned int input) : k(input) {}

operator unsigned int() const
{
return k;
}
};

int main()
{
Blah aaa(87);
Blah const bbb(6);

switch (aaa)
{
case bbb:
;
}
}
Most likely as Blah isn't a POD...

'Blah' is not an integer expression.

Try e.g.

unsigned int sw(aaa);
switch(sw)
{
}
-Mike

[Gianni Mariani]

JKop wrote:

Alf P. Steinbach posted: ....
Ohh... I get it, it has to be a compile-time constant.

Exactly, even thout the compiler (in theory) could determine that the
function will return the same value allways, by defintion, a value
returned from a function is not a compile time constant and hence the
issue you raise.

Now for a total digression ... There are some interesting cases where
the compiler can actually determine at optimization time that the
run-time expression is constant and this is rather interesting.

bool is_little_endian()
{
int v = 1;

return 1 == * static_cast<char*>( static_cast<void*>( & v ) );
}

After investigating optimized code generated from GCC it's apparent the
compiler is capable of generating code as if using a constant.

[JKop]

Gianni Mariani posted:

Now for a total digression ... There are some interesting cases where
the compiler can actually determine at optimization time that the
run-time expression is constant and this is rather interesting.

bool is_little_endian()
{
int v = 1;

return 1 == * static_cast<char*>( static_cast<void*>( & v ) );
******************
I'd've written:

unsigned int const i = 1;

return 1 == *reinterpret_cast<const unsigned char* const &>(&i);
******************
}

After investigating optimized code generated from GCC it's apparent the
compiler is capable of generating code as if using a constant.

Sounds good!

-JKop

[JKop]

> 'Blah' is not an integer expression.

Yeah but I was hoping that "operator int() const" would do
its job...
-JKop

[Victor Bazarov]

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote...

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:rh******************@news.indigo.ie...

Alf P. Steinbach posted:

> * JKop:
>> g++ test.cpp -ansi -pedantic -o test.exe
>> test.cpp: In function `int main()': test.cpp:22: case label does not

>> reduce to an integer constant
>
> That's because you have used the name of an object as

case label, instead

> of using an integer expression as case label. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >

Ohh... I get it, it has to be a compile-time constant.

No, it only needs to be an integer expression.

No, a _case_label_ needs to be a compile-time constant.
[...]

V

[Chris Theis]

"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message
news:tF*****************@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

"JKop" <NU**@NULL.NULL> wrote in message
news:rh******************@news.indigo.ie...

Alf P. Steinbach posted:

* JKop:
> g++ test.cpp -ansi -pedantic -o test.exe
> test.cpp: In function `int main()': test.cpp:22: case

label does not

> reduce to an integer constant

That's because you have used the name of an object as

case label, instead

of using an integer expression as case label.

Ohh... I get it, it has to be a compile-time constant.

No, it only needs to be an integer expression.

e.g.

int x = 42;
switch(x) /* 'x' is not a a compile-time constant */
{
}

[SNIP]

The condition of the switch statement needs to be an integer expression (or
a class type with an existing single conversion function to integral type),
but the problem here is the case statement. For these the standard requires
an integral constant-expression.

Cheers
Chris