197

I want to have a class with a private static data member:

class C { // read-only, can also be static const // should be filled with all characters from 'a' to 'z' static std::vector<char> alphabet; public: C() { /* ... */ } }; 

In Java or C#, I can just make a "static constructor" that will run before I make any instances of the class, and sets up the static data members of the class. It only gets run once (as the variables are read only and only need to be set once) and since it's a function of the class it can access its private members.

I could add code in the C() constructor that checks to see if the vector is initialized, and initialize it if it's not, but that introduces many necessary checks and doesn't seem like the optimal solution to the problem.

The member is read-only, so it can be static const and I can define it outside the class, but that seems like an ugly hack.

Is it possible to have private static data members in a class if I don't want to initialize them in the instance constructor?

0

23 Answers 23

193

To get the equivalent of a static constructor, you need to write a separate ordinary class to hold the static data and then make a static instance of that ordinary class.

class StaticStuff { std::vector<char> letters_; public: StaticStuff() { for (char c = 'a'; c <= 'z'; c++) letters_.push_back(c); } // provide some way to get at letters_ }; class Elsewhere { static StaticStuff staticStuff; // constructor runs once, single instance }; 
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

13 Comments

thanks! though that's very annoying to have to do all that. One of the many "mistakes" C# and java learned from.
Yes. I always point out to people that if C++ hadn't made all those "mistakes" then other languages would have to make them. C++ covering so much ground, even making mistakes, has been great for the languages that followed it.
Just one little nuance, as constructors come into play no one guarantees when the constructor for static object executes. A well-known much safer approach is class Elsewhere { StaticStuff& get_staticStuff() { static StaticStuff staticStuff; // constructor runs once, when someone first needs it return staticStuff; } }; I wonder if static constructors in C# and Java can provide the same guarantee as the code above...
@Oleg: Yes they do. The standard gurantees that the constructors for all non local variables are executed before main is entered. It also gurantees that within a compilation unit the order of construction is well defined and the same order as declaration within the compilation unit. Unfortunately they do not define the order across multiple compilation units.
This is actually a case where friend makes a lot of sense so that class Elsewhere may easily access StaticStuff’s internals (without breaking encapsulation in any dangerous way, I might add).
|
87

Well you can have

class MyClass { public: static vector<char> a; static class _init { public: _init() { for(char i='a'; i<='z'; i++) a.push_back(i); } } _initializer; }; 

Don't forget (in the .cpp) this:

vector<char> MyClass::a; MyClass::_init MyClass::_initializer; 

The program will still link without the second line, but the initializer will not be executed.

7 Comments

+1 (didn't try it out) But: When is ctor _init._init() called? Before or after the ctor of MyClass when I have a static MyClass object? I guess you can't tell...
hello, where can I find more about this "initializer" magic?
Shouldn't it be MyClass::a.push_back(i) instead of a.push_back(i) ?
@ur.: _initializer is a subobject of MyClass. Subobjects are initialised in this order: virtual base class subobjects, in depth-first, left-to-right order (but only initialising each distinct subobject once); then plain base class subobjects, in depth-first, left-to-right order; then member subobjects in order of declaration. So it's safe to use EFraim's strategy, provided that code in _initialiser only refers to members declared before it.
FYI: I added the needed static definitions, plus made _init() private, and tested that the code still works.
|
54

C++17

Since C++17, you can initialize complex static data members by using lambda expressions and declaring them inline:

class MyClass { inline static const std::vector<char> letters = [] { std::vector<char> letters; for (char c = 'a'; c <= 'z'; c++) letters.push_back(c); return letters; }(); }; 

C++11

Since C++11, you can initialize complex static data members by using lambda expressions:

Header file:

class MyClass { static const std::vector<char> letters; }; 

Source file:

const std::vector<char> MyClass::letters = [] { std::vector<char> letters; for (char c = 'a'; c <= 'z'; c++) letters.push_back(c); return letters; }(); 

2 Comments

interesting solution. in this case if i throw an exception who can catch it?
Static program initialization code must never throw any exceptions, or the program will crash. You must wrap the initializer logic into a try catch block if exceptions might be thrown.
21

In the .h file:

class MyClass { private: static int myValue; }; 

In the .cpp file:

#include "myclass.h" int MyClass::myValue = 0; 

2 Comments

This works fine for individual static members (regardless of type). The deficiency in comparison to static constructors is that you can't impose an order between the various static members. If you need to do that, see Earwicker's answer.
I'm doing exactly that, but it still doesn't compile. And it says this is the problem area (in the constructor, not the header)
18

Here is another approach similar to Daniel Earwicker's, also using Konrad Rudolph's friend class suggestion. Here we use an inner private friend utility class to initialize the static members of your main class. For example:

Header file:

class ToBeInitialized { // Inner friend utility class to initialize whatever you need class Initializer { public: Initializer(); }; friend class Initializer; // Static member variables of ToBeInitialized class static const int numberOfFloats; static float *theFloats; // Static instance of Initializer // When this is created, its constructor initializes // the ToBeInitialized class' static variables static Initializer initializer; }; 

Implementation file:

// Normal static scalar initializer const int ToBeInitialized::numberOfFloats = 17; // Constructor of Initializer class. // Here is where you can initialize any static members // of the enclosing ToBeInitialized class since this inner // class is a friend of it. ToBeInitialized::Initializer::Initializer() { ToBeInitialized::theFloats = (float *)malloc(ToBeInitialized::numberOfFloats * sizeof(float)); for (int i = 0; i < ToBeInitialized::numberOfFloats; ++i) ToBeInitialized::theFloats[i] = calculateSomeFancyValue(i); } 

This approach has the advantage of completely hiding the Initializer class from the outside world, keeping everything contained within the class to be initialized.

1 Comment

Also, you have to make sure that ToBeInitialized::Initializer::Initializer() gets called, so you need to add ToBeInitialized::Initializer ToBeInitialized::initializer; to the implementation file. I took some things from your idea and from EFraim's idea, and it works exactly as I need it to and looks clean. Thanks, man.
12

Test::StaticTest() is called exactly once during global static initialization.

Caller only has to add one line to the function that is to be their static constructor.

static_constructor<&Test::StaticTest>::c; forces initialization of c during global static initialization.

template<void(*ctor)()> struct static_constructor { struct constructor { constructor() { ctor(); } }; static constructor c; }; template<void(*ctor)()> typename static_constructor<ctor>::constructor static_constructor<ctor>::c; ///////////////////////////// struct Test { static int number; static void StaticTest() { static_constructor<&Test::StaticTest>::c; number = 123; cout << "static ctor" << endl; } }; int Test::number; int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { cout << Test::number << endl; return 0; } 

Comments

9

No need for an init() function, std::vector can be created from a range:

// h file: class MyClass { static std::vector<char> alphabet; // ... }; // cpp file: #include <boost/range.hpp> static const char alphabet[] = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"; std::vector<char> MyClass::alphabet( boost::begin( ::alphabet ), boost::end( ::alphabet ) ); 

Note, however, that statics of class type cause trouble in libraries, so they should be avoided there.

C++11 Update

As of C++11, you can do this instead:

// cpp file: std::vector<char> MyClass::alphabet = { 'a', 'b', 'c', ..., 'z' }; 

It's semantically equivalent to the C++98 solution in the original answer, but you can't use a string literal on the right-hand-side, so it's not completely superior. However, if you have a vector of any other type than char, wchar_t, char16_t or char32_t (arrays of which can be written as string literals), the C++11 version will strictly remove boilerplate code without introducing other syntax, compared to the C++98 version.

6 Comments

I like it. Though if only we could do it in one line without the now usless alphabet.
For causing problems with libraries, does it matter if the static class is private or public? Additionally, does it matter if the library is static(.a) or dynamic(.so)?
@ZacharyKraus: what's a public/private class? And no, while the problems are different, but overlapping, it doesn't matter whether the library is linked statically or dynamically.
@MarcMutz-mmutz Sorry about using public/private class which is not correct C++ terminology. What I was referring to is the solution by EFraim above. In my version though, I made the static class member private. I was trying to understand if having a static class member as public or private makes a difference in library development and usability. My gut tells me it should not effect the library because users will never have access to either the static class member or the object its building, but I would love to get some guru's wisdom on this topic.
@ZacharyKraus: The main problem with statics that require dynamic initialisation ([basic.start.init]/2) is that they run code. In libraries, it could be that the library code has already been unloaded when the destructors are run. If you want to hear more, I suggest to post a question about it.
|
7

The concept of static constructors was introduced in Java after they learned from the problems in C++. So we have no direct equivalent.

The best solution is to use POD types that can be initialised explicitly.
Or make your static members a specific type that has its own constructor that will initialize it correctly.

//header class A { // Make sure this is private so that nobody can missues the fact that // you are overriding std::vector. Just doing it here as a quicky example // don't take it as a recomendation for deriving from vector. class MyInitedVar: public std::vector<char> { public: MyInitedVar() { // Pre-Initialize the vector. for(char c = 'a';c <= 'z';++c) { push_back(c); } } }; static int count; static MyInitedVar var1; }; //source int A::count = 0; A::MyInitedVar A::var1; 

Comments

4

When trying to compile and use class Elsewhere (from Earwicker's answer) I get:

error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "private: static class StaticStuff Elsewhere::staticStuff" (?staticStuff@Elsewhere@@0VStaticStuff@@A) 

It seems is not possible to initialize static attributes of non-integer types without putting some code outside the class definition (CPP).

To make that compile you can use "a static method with a static local variable inside" instead. Something like this:

class Elsewhere { public: static StaticStuff& GetStaticStuff() { static StaticStuff staticStuff; // constructor runs once, single instance return staticStuff; } }; 

And you may also pass arguments to the constructor or initialize it with specific values, it is very flexible, powerfull and easy to implement... the only thing is you have a static method containing a static variable, not a static attribute... syntaxis changes a bit, but still useful. Hope this is useful for someone,

Hugo González Castro.

3 Comments

Though be careful if using threads. I believe in GCC the construction of static locals is protected against concurrent execution, but in Visual C++ it is not.
From C++11 onwards, and in POSIX, it has to be thread-safe.
I quite liked two other solutions above (this and this), but yours is the only one that ensures initialization of statics in the order they're needed across libraries. I just have a private static Instance method like yours above, and wrap access to other values in public static accessors that use that Instance method instead of direct references. Thanks.
4

I guess Simple solution to this will be:

 //X.h #pragma once class X { public: X(void); ~X(void); private: static bool IsInit; static bool Init(); }; //X.cpp #include "X.h" #include <iostream> X::X(void) { } X::~X(void) { } bool X::IsInit(Init()); bool X::Init() { std::cout<< "ddddd"; return true; } // main.cpp #include "X.h" int main () { return 0; } 

Comments

2

Wow, I can't believe no one mentioned the most obvious answer, and one that most closely mimics C#'s static-constructor behavior, i.e. it doesn't get called until the first object of that type is created.

std::call_once() is available in C++11; if you can't use that, it can be done with a static boolean class-variable, and a compare-and-exchange atomic-operation. In your constructor, see if you can atomically change the class-static flag from false to true, and if so, you can run the static-construction code.

For extra credit, make it a 3-way flag instead of a boolean, i.e. not run, running, and done running. Then all other instances of that class can spin-lock until the instance running the static-constructor has finished (i.e. issue a memory-fence, then set the state to "done running"). Your spin-lock should execute the processor's "pause" instruction, double the wait each time up until a threshold, etc. — pretty standard spin-locking technique.

In the absence of C++11, this should get you started.

Here's some pseudocode to guide you. Put this in your class definition:

enum EStaticConstructor { kNotRun, kRunning, kDone }; static volatile EStaticConstructor sm_eClass = kNotRun; 

And this in your constructor:

while (sm_eClass == kNotRun) { if (atomic_compare_exchange_weak(&sm_eClass, kNotRun, kRunning)) { /* Perform static initialization here. */ atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_release); sm_eClass = kDone; } } while (sm_eClass != kDone) atomic_pause(); 

Comments

1

Just solved same trick. I had to specify definition of a single static member for Singleton. But make things more complicated - I have decided that I do not want to call ctor of RandClass() unless I am gonna use it... that is why I did not want to initialize singleton globally in my code. Also I've added simple interface in my case.

Here is the final code:

I simplified code and use rand() function and its single seed initialzer srand()

interface IRandClass { public: virtual int GetRandom() = 0; }; class RandClassSingleton { private: class RandClass : public IRandClass { public: RandClass() { srand(GetTickCount()); }; virtual int GetRandom(){return rand();}; }; RandClassSingleton(){}; RandClassSingleton(const RandClassSingleton&); // static RandClass m_Instance; // If you declare m_Instance here you need to place // definition for this static object somewhere in your cpp code as // RandClassSingleton::RandClass RandClassSingleton::m_Instance; public: static RandClass& GetInstance() { // Much better to instantiate m_Instance here (inside of static function). // Instantiated only if this function is called. static RandClass m_Instance; return m_Instance; }; }; main() { // Late binding. Calling RandClass ctor only now IRandClass *p = &RandClassSingleton::GetInstance(); int randValue = p->GetRandom(); } abc() { IRandClass *same_p = &RandClassSingleton::GetInstance(); } 

Comments

1

Here's my variant of EFraim's solution; the difference is that, thanks to implicit template instantiation, the static constructor is only called if instances of the class are created, and that no definition in the .cpp file is needed (thanks to template instantiation magic).

In the .h file, you have:

template <typename Aux> class _MyClass { public: static vector<char> a; _MyClass() { (void) _initializer; //Reference the static member to ensure that it is instantiated and its initializer is called. } private: static struct _init { _init() { for(char i='a'; i<='z'; i++) a.push_back(i); } } _initializer; }; typedef _MyClass<void> MyClass; template <typename Aux> vector<char> _MyClass<Aux>::a; template <typename Aux> typename _MyClass<Aux>::_init _MyClass<Aux>::_initializer; 

In the .cpp file, you can have:

void foobar() { MyClass foo; // [1] for (vector<char>::iterator it = MyClass::a.begin(); it < MyClass::a.end(); ++it) { cout << *it; } cout << endl; } 

Note that MyClass::a is initialized only if line [1] is there, because that calls (and requires instantiation of) the constructor, which then requires instantiation of _initializer.

Comments

1

Here's another method, where the vector is private to the file that contains the implementation by using an anonymous namespace. It's useful for things like lookup tables that are private to the implementation:

#include <iostream> #include <vector> using namespace std; namespace { vector<int> vec; struct I { I() { vec.push_back(1); vec.push_back(3); vec.push_back(5); }} i; } int main() { vector<int>::const_iterator end = vec.end(); for (vector<int>::const_iterator i = vec.begin(); i != end; ++i) { cout << *i << endl; } return 0; } 

2 Comments

Though you might want to name I and i something a little more obscure so you don't accidentally use them somewhere lower in the file.
To be honest, it's hard to see why anyone would want to use private static members rather than anonmymous namespaces in implementation files.
1

It certainly doesn't need to be as complicated as the currently accepted answer (by Daniel Earwicker). The class is superfluous. There's no need for a language war in this case.

.hpp file:

vector<char> const & letters(); 

.cpp file:

vector<char> const & letters() { static vector<char> v = {'a', 'b', 'c', ...}; return v; } 

Comments

1

GCC offers

__attribute__((constructor)) 

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.0/gcc/Function-Attributes.html

Tag a static method with this attribute and it will run on module load, before main().

Comments

0

You define static member variables similarly to the way you define member methods.

foo.h

class Foo { public: void bar(); private: static int count; }; 

foo.cpp

#include "foo.h" void Foo::bar() { // method definition } int Foo::count = 0; 

1 Comment

CrazyJugglerDrummer question was not about a static plain old data type :)
0

To initialize a static variable, you just do so inside of a source file. For example:

//Foo.h class Foo { private: static int hello; }; //Foo.cpp int Foo::hello = 1; 

1 Comment

CrazyJugglerDrummer question was not about a static plain old data type :)
0

How about creating a template to mimic the behavior of C#.

template<class T> class StaticConstructor { bool m_StaticsInitialised = false; public: typedef void (*StaticCallback)(void); StaticConstructor(StaticCallback callback) { if (m_StaticsInitialised) return; callback(); m_StaticsInitialised = true; } } template<class T> bool StaticConstructor<T>::m_StaticsInitialised; class Test : public StaticConstructor<Test> { static std::vector<char> letters_; static void _Test() { for (char c = 'a'; c <= 'z'; c++) letters_.push_back(c); } public: Test() : StaticConstructor<Test>(&_Test) { // non static stuff }; }; 

Comments

0

For simple cases like here a static variable wrapped inside a static member function is nearly as good. It's simple and will usually be optimized away by compilers. This does not solve initialization order problem for complex objects though.

#include <iostream> class MyClass { static const char * const letters(void){ static const char * const var = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"; return var; } public: void show(){ std::cout << letters() << "\n"; } }; int main(){ MyClass c; c.show(); } 

Comments

0

Is this a solution?

class Foo { public: size_t count; Foo() { static size_t count = 0; this->count = count += 1; } }; 

Comments

0

A static constructor can be emulated by using a friend class or nested class as below.

class ClassStatic{ private: static char *str; public: char* get_str() { return str; } void set_str(char *s) { str = s; } // A nested class, which used as static constructor static class ClassInit{ public: ClassInit(int size){ // Static constructor definition str = new char[size]; str = "How are you?"; } } initializer; }; // Static variable creation char* ClassStatic::str; // Static constructor call ClassStatic::ClassInit ClassStatic::initializer(20); int main() { ClassStatic a; ClassStatic b; std::cout << "String in a: " << a.get_str() << std::endl; std::cout << "String in b: " << b.get_str() << std::endl; a.set_str("I am fine"); std::cout << "String in a: " << a.get_str() << std::endl; std::cout << "String in b: " << b.get_str() << std::endl; std::cin.ignore(); } 

Output:

String in a: How are you? String in b: How are you? String in a: I am fine String in b: I am fine 

1 Comment

Why are you newing a char array only to immediately leak the pointer and overwrite it!?
-1

I use this technique to init static stuff : In the .cpp file :

struct InitMe { InitMe(){ // do all the static stuff you want here } } initMe; 

Because it's in a compilation unit, the variable initMe will have a program lifetime. The constructor will be initialized before main(), and the destructor, if any, will be called before program termination. Like all static stuff, there's no guarantee on the order it will be executed, but in a single .cpp file, there's a guarantee that static stuff will be initialized in order they appear in the file.

Comments

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.