I'm just wondering whether sentences like const int N=10 will be executed at compilation time. The reason I'm asking is because that the following code will work.
int main()
{
const int N=10;
int a[N]={};
return 0;
}
But this one wouldn't.
int main()
{
int N=10;
int a[N]={};
return 0;
}
The compiler must generate code "as if" the expression was evaluated at
compile time, but the const itself isn't sufficient for this. In
order to be used as the dimension of an array, for example, expression
N must be a "constant integral expression". A const int is
a constant integral expresion only if it is initialized with a constant
integral expression, and the initialization is visible to the compiler.
(Something like extern int const N;, for example, can't be used in
a constant integral expression.)
To be a constant integral expression, however, the variable must be
const; in your second example, the behavior of the compiler and the
resulting program must be "as if" the expression were only evaluated at
runtime (which means that it cannot be used as the dimension of an
array). In practice, at least with optimization, the compiler likely
would evaluate N at compile time, but it still has to pretend it
can't, and refuse to compile the code.
The compiler will probably evaluate both of the examples you provided at compile time, since even though the int N = 10; isn't const, you're not changing it anywhere and you're only assigning a constant value to it, which means the compiler can optimize this.
I recommend you take a look at the constexpr keyword introduced in C++11, which is exactly about being able to evaluate things at compile time.
Compilers will resolve const variables to literals at compile time (and also const expressions, see constant folding). The reason that the first method works is that compiler knows how much space to allocate (10*sizeof(int)) to a in the first method. In the second method the value of N is not known at compile time, and as such there is no way for the compiler to know how much space to allocate for a. Hope that helps.
This sort of thing is an implementation detail that technically is up to the compiler to choose. It could be different on different platforms.
In practice, with the most common compilers:
const int sometimes is and sometimes isn't baked at compile time. For example, the compiler clearly can't hardcode the value of a below into the object file:
int foo( int x )
{
const int a = x+ 1;
return a * 2;
}
In that function, const means it is only constant within the scope of foo(), but it is still a local stack variable.
On the other hand, const int x = 5 seems to be a literal that is usually resolved at compile time by GCC and MSVC (except sometimes they don't turn it into a literal for reasons unclear). I've seen some other compilers that won't turn it into a literal, and always put const int on the stack like an ordinary local variable.
const static int is different, because its scope is static, which means it outlives the function it is declared in, which means it will never change over the life of the program. Every compiler I've ever worked with has turned const static primitives into compile-time literals.
Objects with constructors, however, will still need to be initialized at runtime; so
class Foo {
Foo() : { CallGlobalFunction(); }
};
const static Foo g_whatever;
cannot be optimized into a literal by the compiler.
