Question

Consider the following code:

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
    int x, y, i;
    cin >> x >> y >> i;
    switch(i) {
        case 1:
            // int r = x + y; -- OK
            int r = 1; // Failed to Compile
            cout << r;
            break;
        case 2:
            r = x - y;
            cout << r;
            break;
    };
}

G++ complains:

<source>: In function 'int main()':
<source>:14:14: error: jump to case label
   14 |         case 2:
      |              ^
<source>:11:17: note:   crosses initialization of 'int r'
   11 |             int r = 1; // Failed to Compile
      |                 ^

My questions are:

1. What is crosses initialization?
2. Why do the first initializer x + y pass the compilation, but the latter failed?
3. What are the problems of so-called crosses initialization?

I know I should use brackets to specify the scope of r, but I want to know why, for example why non-POD could not be defined in a multi-case switch statement.

Answer 1

The version with int r = x + y; won’t compile either.

The problem is that it is possible for r to come to scope without its initializer being executed. The code would compile fine if you removed the initializer completely (i.e. the line would read int r;).

The best thing you can do is to limit the scope of the variable. That way you’ll satisfy both the compiler and the reader.

switch(i)
{
case 1:
    {
        int r = 1;
        cout << r;
    }
    break;
case 2:
    {
        int r = x - y;
        cout << r;
    }
    break;
};

The Standard says (6.7/3):

It is possible to transfer into a block, but not in a way that bypasses declarations with initialization. A program that jumps from a point where a local variable with automatic storage duration is not in scope to a point where it is in scope is ill-formed unless the variable has POD type (3.9) and is declared without an initializer (8.5).