Menu
I'm working with with MS Visual Studio 2017, V. 15.9.8.
I am using the excellent JetBrains ReSharper Ultimate 2019.1.2 Build 191.0.20190603.142841. It gives me a warning at the indicated location:
#include <vector>
struct T
{
std::vector<char> m;
const char *f() const
{
static const char emptyData; // ReSharper complains here
return m.size() ? &m[0] : &emptyData;
}
};
The message is
file.h: Static local variable of type 'const unsigned char' should be initialized. This is non-standard Microsoft C++ extension.
The warning disappears if emptyData is not const.
The warning is wrong since all static data, including constant static locals, are per the standard zero-initialized, right?
223
Is initialisation mandatory for local static variables? Explanation: None.
The default initialization value of a static variable is zero, even if it is not assigned, which is not the case in a local variable. It is mandatory to initialize the static variable using the static keyword in C else it will return an error.
In C++ the const keyword has been improved and you can declare real const values. That's why it has to be initialized before compiling the code. The rule is slightly different: to be used in an integral constant expression, the initialization must be visible to the compiler.
The const keyword converts nothing more but a constant. The specialty of these variables is that they need to have a value at compile time and, by default, they are static. This default value means that a single copy of the variable is created and shared among all objects.
The warning is wrong since all static data, including constant static locals, are per the standard zero-initialized, right?
It's just slightly inaccurate. There is initial zero initialisation indeed, but after that the variable is default initialised. For char, default initialisation is no initialisation which in case of previous zero initialisation would leave the zero value intact. A pedantically correct message would be that constant objects (of this type) must not be default initialised.
The standard (latest draft says):
If a program calls for the default-initialization of an object of a const-qualified type T, T shall be a const-default-constructible class type or array thereof.
The program violates this rule and is ill-formed.
Note that until C++17 default initialisation was not allowed for any const qualified type.
126
I believe it's because of the const, constants variables must be initilized, if the line is const char emptyData;, you get an error for uninitialized constvariable, so I think it's not the static modifier that is causing the problem.
There is a topic about this matter that seems interesting here.
Whether it is const static char emptyData; or static const char emptyData; the error in g++2a(GNU) compiler is:
error: uninitialized 'const emptyData' [-fpermissive]
42
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
