Question

I had this code:

int foo(void){
    return 1;
}

int main(void){
    static const int x = foo();

    //do stuff
    return 0;
}

But I got an error about initializing a static variable with a non-const value. I thought it had something to do with the const specifier, but it didn’t. I ended dropping the const keyword and doing this:

int foo(void){
    return 1;
}

int main(void){
    static int x = 0;
    if (x == 0) x = foo();

    //do stuff
    return 0;
}

Now, why can’t the compiler just delay the initialization of the static int x variable until it’s used, and more importantly, why can’t it just put it in a read-write section, and just enforce that it’s not written to in compile time? I’d like to use the const AND static keyword for improved semantics in my code, but I don’t really care how the compiler handles this, just let it work.

Is my understanding of the C standard wrong? Or is my compiler sucking? It’s MSVC 9.0.

Answer 1

C requires it.

From the C Standard:

(C99, 6.7.8p4) “All the expressions in an initializer for an object that has static storage duration shall be constant expressions or string literals.”

Note that the const qualifier does not mean constant but rather read-only. A const object is not a constant in C.

The reason a static object cannot be initialized by a non constant value is related to the fact that the initialization of a static object is done “prior to program startup” (C99, 6.2.4p3).