108

I have a function that is declared and defined in a header file. This is a problem all by itself. When that function is not inlined, every translation unit that uses that header gets a copy of the function, and when they are linked together there are duplicated.

I've "fixed" that by making the function inline, but I'm afraid that this is a fragile solution because as far as I know, the compiler doesn't guarantee inlining, even when you specify the inline keyword. If this is not true, please correct me.

Anyway, what happens to static variables inside this function? How many copies do I end up with?

Improve this question

10 Answers 10

Reset to default
132

I guess you're missing something, here.

static function?

Declaring a function static will make it "hidden" in its compilation unit.

A name having namespace scope (3.3.6) has internal linkage if it is the name of

— a variable, function or function template that is explicitly declared static;

3.5/3 - C++14 (n3797)

When a name has internal linkage , the entity it denotes can be referred to by names from other scopes in the same translation unit.

3.5/2 - C++14 (n3797)

If you declare this static function in a header, then all the compilation units including this header will have their own copy of the function.

The thing is, if there are static variables inside that function, each compilation unit including this header will also have their own, personal version.

inline function?

Declaring it inline makes it a candidate for inlining (it does not mean a lot nowadays in C++, as the compiler will inline or not, sometimes ignoring the fact the keyword inline is present or absent):

A function declaration (8.3.5, 9.3, 11.3) with an inline specifier declares an inline function. The inline specifier indicates to the implementation that inline substitution of the function body at the point of call is to be preferred to the usual function call mechanism. An implementation is not required to perform this inline substitution at the point of call; however, even if this inline substitution is omitted, the other rules for inline functions defined by 7.1.2 shall still be respected.

7.1.2/2 - C++14 (n3797)

In a header, its has an interesting side effect: The inlined function can be defined multiple times in the same module, and the linker will simply join "them" into one (if they were not inlined for compiler's reason).

For static variables declared inside, the standard specifically says there one, and only one of them:

A static local variable in an extern inline function always refers to the same object.

7.1.2/4 - C++98/C++14 (n3797)

(functions are by default extern, so, unless you specifically mark your function as static, this applies to that function)

This has the advantage of "static" (i.e. it can be defined in a header) without its flaws (it exists at most once if it is not inlined)

static local variable?

Static local variables have no linkage (they can't be referred to by name outside their scope), but has static storage duration (i.e. it is global, but its construction and destruction obey to specific rules).

static + inline?

Mixing inline and static will then have the consequences you described (even if the function is inlined, the static variable inside won't be, and you'll end with as much static variables as you have compilation units including the definition of your static functions).

Answer to author's additional question

Since I wrote the question I tried it out with Visual Studio 2008. I tried to turn on all the options that make VS act in compliance with standards, but it's possible that I missed some. These are the results:

When the function is merely "inline", there is only one copy of the static variable.

When the function is "static inline", there are as many copies as there are translation units.

The real question is now whether things are supposed to be this way, or if this is an idiosyncrasy of the Microsoft C++ compiler.

So I suppose you have something like that:

void doSomething()
{
   static int value ;
}

You must realise that the static variable inside the function, simply put, a global variable hidden to all but the function's scope, meaning that only the function it is declared inside can reach it.

Inlining the function won't change anything:

inline void doSomething()
{
   static int value ;
}

There will be only one hidden global variable. The fact the compiler will try to inline the code won't change the fact there is only one global hidden variable.

Now, if your function is declared static:

static void doSomething()
{
   static int value ;
}

Then it is "private" for each compilation unit, meaning that every CPP file including the header where the static function is declared will have its own private copy of the function, including its own private copy of global hidden variable, thus as much variables as there are compilation units including the header.

Adding "inline" to a "static" function with a "static" variable inside:

inline static void doSomething()
{
   static int value ;
}

has the same result than not adding this "inline" keyword, as far as the static variable inside is concerned.

So the behaviour of VC++ is correct, and you are mistaking the real meaning of "inline" and "static".

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

10 Comments

I think you are missing an important point to mention, that at the linking phase all those static variables declared in inline function would be resolved to one, am I wrong?
No, because each static variables is inside its own separate function: Despite the fact the functions have the same name, they have internal linkage, and thus, are not shared accross translation units.
@paercebal in inline void doSomething() { static int value ; }, the function has external linkage ; this is an ODR violation if it appears in a header that's included from two different units
@M.M what do you mean? Your function is inline, it can't violate ODR.
@zzz777 I am not familiar with C's standard, but in a C201x standard draft (open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1548.pdf), in 6.7.4§3 (Function specifiers), you have: "An inline definition of a function with external linkage shall not contain a definition of a modifiable object with static or thread storage duration, and shall not contain a reference to an identifier with internal linkage." which seems to rule out extern inline function with static local variables. I thought extern was the default for functions, but apparently not in this context... I don't know... See also §7...
|
45

I believe the compiler creates many copies of the variable, but the linker picks one and makes all the others reference it. I had similar results when I tried an experiment to create different versions of an inline function; if the function wasn't actually inlined (debug mode), all calls went to the same function regardless of the source file they were called from.

Think like a compiler for a moment - how could it be otherwise? Each compilation unit (source file) is independent of the others, and can be compiled separately; each one must therefore create a copy of the variable, thinking it is the only one. The linker has the ability to reach across those boundaries and adjust the references for both variables and functions.

Improve this answer

10 Comments

AFAICT, you're perfectly correct in what you are saying here. I do not understand why people are down voting this answer. My only guess is that they read as far as "many copies of the variable", and then stop! :( Anyway a token (+1) from me.
When people ask about what the compiler does they mean the compiler + the linker, since you can't run object files. So this answer is correct but totally meaningless.
Because people are ignorant.This is more advanced question and all are supposed to make the distinction in the discussion.
Actually, this answer is perfectly meaningful. It answers the "meant" question, but still uses correct terms.
You can see kyungminlee.org/doc/minutiae/… for more information. IMO all the other answers are misleading because none of them show what actually happens. Behavior in C vs C++ also needs to be distinguished.
|
14

I found Mark Ransom's answer helpful - that the compiler creates many copies of the static variable, but the linker chooses one and enforces it across all translation units.

Elsewhere I found this:

See [dcl.fct.spec]/4

[..] An inline function with external linkage shall have the same address in all translation units. A static local variable in an extern inline function always refers to the same object. A string literal in an extern inline function is the same object in different translation units.

I don't have a copy of the standard to check, but it matches with my experience examining the assembly in VS Express 2008

Improve this answer

Comments

7

It is supposed to be this way. "static" tells the compiler you want the function to be local to the compilation unit, therefore you want one copy per compilation unit and one copy of the static variables per instance of the function.

"inline" used to tell the compiler you want the function to be inlined; nowadays, it just takes it as "it's ok if there are several copies of the code, just make sure it's the same function". So everybody shares the static variables.

Note: this answer was written in response to the answer the original poster posted to himself.

Improve this answer

4 Comments

He is asking about 'static variables' in an 'inline function', not variables in a static function.
We agree on that, but you're right: an edit is needed to put the answer back in context.
I came across this too. So which of the two is it? inline causes the function to be inlined or it's ok to have multiple copies?
@Vassilis both are right, though inline does not cause inlining, it just suggests it, and it allows for more than one definition (but not in the same compile unit).
4

Since I wrote the question I tried it out with Visual Studio 2008. I tried to turn on all the options that make VS act in compliance with standards, but it's possible that I missed some. These are the results:

When the function is merely "inline", there is only one copy of the static variable.

When the function is "static inline", there are as many copies as there are translation units.

The real question is now whether things are supposed to be this way, or if this is an ideosyncracy of the Microsoft C++ compiler.

Improve this answer

2 Comments

"When the function is "static inline"," -- Your original posting didn't say anything about doing that. You should expect different results because static on a function has a different meaning from static on a variable. static on a function means other translation units won't see this definition.
not sure of your settings but the compiler is working correctly in this case. However you may want to include a unit test, in case you run into some non conforming compiler down the road.
0

I have conducted an experiment, I create two cpp files and add inline function with a static counter via a header file to each cpp file excluding one with main(), then call show counter functions from each cpp file and get that counter is only one. That is in case with an inline function and a static local variable in it there is only one instance of that variable:

InlineFunction.h

#pragma once

inline int addCount()
{
    static int counter{0};

    ++counter;

    return counter;
}

Ext1.cpp

#include <iostream>
#include "InlineFunction.h"

void showCounterExt1()
{
    std::cout << "The Ext1 counter is " << addCount() << '\n';
}

Ext2.cpp

#include <iostream>
#include "InlineFunction.h"

void showCounterExt2()
{
    std::cout << "The Ext2 counter is " << addCount() << '\n';
}

Main.cpp

#include <iostream>


void showCounterExt1();

void showCounterExt2();


int main()
{
    showCounterExt1();
    showCounterExt1();
    showCounterExt1();

    showCounterExt2();
    showCounterExt2();
    showCounterExt2();

    return 0;
}

Result:

The Ext1 counter is 1

The Ext1 counter is 2

The Ext1 counter is 3

The Ext2 counter is 4

The Ext2 counter is 5

The Ext2 counter is 6

enter image description here

Improve this answer

Comments

-3

Inlining means that executable code (instructions) is inlined into the calling function's code. The compiler can choose to do that regardless of whether you've asked it to. That has no effect on the variables (data) declared in the function.

Improve this answer

Comments

-4

Static means one copy is distributed throughout the program , but inline means it requires the same code for several time in the same program , so it is not possible to make a variable static inside the inline function.

Improve this answer

Comments

-5

I believe you will end up with one per translation unit. You've effectively got many versions of that function (and its declared static variable), one for every translation unit that includes the header.

Improve this answer

Comments

-6

Besides any design issues this all may imply, since you're already stuck with it, you should use static in this case not inline. That way everyone shares the same variables. (Static function)

Improve this answer

1 Comment

This answer is wrong. Static has the opposite effect to what you describe.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.