Static constexpr int vs old-fashioned enum: when and why?

Question

This is maybe a basic question, but I cannot see the response by myself right now.

Consider the following code:

template<bool b>
struct T {
    static constexpr int value = (b ? 42 : 0);
};

template<bool b>
struct U {
    enum { value = (b ? 42 : 0) };
};

int main() {
    static_assert(T<true>::value == 42, "!");
    static_assert(T<false>::value == 0, "!");
    static_assert(U<true>::value == 42, "!");
    static_assert(U<false>::value == 0, "!");
}

I'm used to using structs like T, but more than once I've seen structs like U used for the same purpose (mostly traits definition).

As far as I can see, they are both resolved at compile time and they solve almost the same problem, but it seems to me that T is far more readable than U (well, I know, my personal opinion).

My question is pretty simple: is there any technical reason for which one solution is better than the other one?
Even more, is there any case for which one of them is not a viable solution?

If you were using something other than integrals then you'd HAVE to use constexpr. — Edward Strange
– Edward Strange, Commented May 16, 2016 at 17:48
@CrazyEddie This is quite obvious!! The example is not there for a mistake. :-) — skypjack
– skypjack, Commented May 16, 2016 at 18:17
I'd like to know the reasons of the downvoters and the ones that voted to close the question as primarily opinion-based, with such a technical answer posted by @SergeyA (as correctly pointed out in the question for its technical parts, indeed). Quite funny. — skypjack
– skypjack, Commented May 16, 2016 at 19:18

SergeyA · Accepted Answer · 2021-04-30 14:07:08Z

31

Please note, answer below is not applicable for C++ 17 and later.

There will be no noticeable difference for integral constants when used like this.

However, enum is actually better, because it is a true named constant. constexpr integral constant is an object which can be, for example, ODR-used - and that would result in linking errors.

#include <iostream>

struct T {
    static constexpr int i = 42;
    enum : int {x = 42};
};

void check(const int& z) {
    std::cout << "Check: " << z << "\n";
}

int main() {
    // check(T::i); // Uncommenting this will lead to link error
    check(T::x);
}

When check(T::i) is uncommented, the program can not be linked:

/tmp/ccZoETx7.o: In function `main': ccc.cpp:(.text+0x45): undefined reference to `T::i' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

However, the true enum always works.

edited Apr 30, 2021 at 14:07

answered May 16, 2016 at 17:40

SergeyA

62.9k5 gold badges85 silver badges143 bronze badges

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

22 Comments

Mooing Duck Over a year ago

You can work around the issue by instantiating i in a cpp file, but then that allows you to take the address of &. Taking the address of a value is nonsensical. Enums don't allow this.

skypjack Over a year ago

@BenCollins You can see 3.2p3 or any other site like this one.

skypjack Over a year ago

@gnzlbg inline variable? Never heard about them. Have you a link? Thanks.

Barry Over a year ago

@skypjack N4424

ixSci Over a year ago

@SergeyA, "If a program contains a violation of a rule for which no diagnostic is required, this International Standard places no requirement on implementations with respect to that program."

|

Community · Accepted Answer · 2017-05-23 12:02:24Z

5

I suspect it's legacy code.

enum { value = (b ? 42 : 0) };

is valid code in C++03 as well as C++11.

static constexpr int value = (b ? 42 : 0);

is valid only in C++11.

Even more, is there any case for which one of them is not a viable solution?

Both are viable solutions in C++11. The choice of which one to use depends on a team. It's going to be a matter of a policy decision.

As the answer by SergeyA indicates, enum are true constants. You cannot ODR-use them. You can ODR-use a constexpr. Depending on which of these is desirable for your application, you can decide whether to use enums or constexprs.

edited May 23, 2017 at 12:02

CommunityBot

11 silver badge

answered May 16, 2016 at 17:35

R Sahu

207k15 gold badges168 silver badges291 bronze badges

6 Comments

skypjack Over a year ago

It makes sense and I suspect almost the same. I've asked on SO in regard of obscure technical reasons for I'm not sure about that, that's all. :-)

R Sahu Over a year ago

@skypjack let's hope someone has more insight.

SergeyA Over a year ago

There is a benefit in using enum, see my answer.

SergeyA Over a year ago

@RSahu, I doubt there is a case when someone wants to ODR-use a constexpr. This is usually undesired.

R Sahu Over a year ago

@SergeyA, I am not willing to bet against that. I have seen developers pull some crazy stuff.

|

Touloudou · Accepted Answer · 2019-10-04 10:14:38Z

5

The currently accepted answer by SergeyA no longer holds as of C++17 (Definitions and ODR).

Every declaration is a definition, except for the following:

...

(deprecated) Namespace scope declaration of a static data member that was defined within the class with the constexpr specifier

struct S {
    static constexpr int x = 42; // implicitly inline, defines S::x
};
constexpr int S::x; // declares S::x, not a redefinition

Hence, as of C++17, I would use the static constexpr definition which is more expressive than the enum.

answered Oct 4, 2019 at 10:14

Touloudou

2,2932 gold badges25 silver badges46 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Static constexpr int vs old-fashioned enum: when and why?

3 Answers 3

22 Comments

6 Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

3 Answers 3

22 Comments

6 Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related