在C语言中,下列语句中使用哪个更好?
static const int var = 5;
or
#define var 5
or
enum { var = 5 };
在C语言中,下列语句中使用哪个更好?
static const int var = 5;
or
#define var 5
or
enum { var = 5 };
当前回答
一个简单的区别:
在预处理时,常量被替换为它的值。 因此,不能将解引用操作符应用于定义,但可以将解引用操作符应用于变量。
如您所料,define比static const更快。
例如,有:
#define mymax 100
你不能做printf("address of constant is %p",&mymax);
但是有
const int mymax_var=100
你可以做printf("address of constant is %p",&mymax_var);
更清楚地说,define在预处理阶段被它的值替换,因此程序中没有存储任何变量。我们只有使用define的程序文本段的代码。
然而,对于static const,我们有一个被分配到某处的变量。对于gcc,静态const分配在程序的文本段中。
上面,我想讲的是引用操作符,所以用引用替换解引用。
其他回答
这取决于你需要这个值做什么。你(和目前所有人一样)忽略了第三种选择:
Static const int var = 5; #定义var 5 枚举{var = 5};
忽略名字的选择问题,那么:
If you need to pass a pointer around, you must use (1). Since (2) is apparently an option, you don't need to pass pointers around. Both (1) and (3) have a symbol in the debugger's symbol table - that makes debugging easier. It is more likely that (2) will not have a symbol, leaving you wondering what it is. (1) cannot be used as a dimension for arrays at global scope; both (2) and (3) can. (1) cannot be used as a dimension for static arrays at function scope; both (2) and (3) can. Under C99, all of these can be used for local arrays. Technically, using (1) would imply the use of a VLA (variable-length array), though the dimension referenced by 'var' would of course be fixed at size 5. (1) cannot be used in places like switch statements; both (2) and (3) can. (1) cannot be used to initialize static variables; both (2) and (3) can. (2) can change code that you didn't want changed because it is used by the preprocessor; both (1) and (3) will not have unexpected side-effects like that. You can detect whether (2) has been set in the preprocessor; neither (1) nor (3) allows that.
因此,在大多数情况下,优先选择“enum”而不是其他选项。否则,第一个和最后一个要点很可能是控制因素——如果你需要同时满足这两个点,你必须更努力地思考。
如果你问的是c++,那么你每次都应该使用option (1) - static const。
虽然这个问题是关于整数的,但值得注意的是,如果需要常量结构或字符串,#define和enum是无用的。它们通常都作为指针传递给函数。(对于字符串,它是必需的;有了结构,效率就高多了。)
As for integers, if you're in an embedded environment with very limited memory, you might need to worry about where the constant is stored and how accesses to it are compiled. The compiler might add two consts at run time, but add two #defines at compile time. A #define constant may be converted into one or more MOV [immediate] instructions, which means the constant is effectively stored in program memory. A const constant will be stored in the .const section in data memory. In systems with a Harvard architecture, there could be differences in performance and memory usage, although they'd likely be small. They might matter for hard-core optimization of inner loops.
顺便说一句,#define的另一个选择是“enum”,它提供了适当的作用域,但表现得像一个“真正的”常量。例如:
enum {number_ten = 10;}
在许多情况下,定义枚举类型并创建这些类型的变量是有用的;如果这样做了,调试器可能能够根据变量的枚举名称显示变量。
然而,这样做有一个重要的警告:在c++中,枚举类型与整数的兼容性有限。例如,默认情况下,不能对它们进行算术运算。我发现这是枚举的一个奇怪的默认行为;虽然有一个“严格的enum”类型会很好,但考虑到c++通常与C兼容,我认为“enum”类型的默认行为应该与整数互换。
的定义
const int const_value = 5;
并不总是定义一个常数值。一些编译器(例如tcc 0.9.26)只分配名称为“const_value”的内存。使用标识符“const_value”你不能修改这个内存。但是你仍然可以使用另一个标识符来修改内存:
const int const_value = 5;
int *mutable_value = (int*) &const_value;
*mutable_value = 3;
printf("%i", const_value); // The output may be 5 or 3, depending on the compiler.
这意味着定义
#define CONST_VALUE 5
是定义一个不能用任何方法修改的常数值的唯一方法。
我不确定我是否正确,但在我看来,调用#defined value比调用任何其他正常声明的变量(或const value)快得多。 这是因为当程序运行时,它需要使用一些正常声明的变量,它需要跳转到内存中的确切位置来获得该变量。
相反,当它使用#defined value时,程序不需要跳转到任何已分配的内存,它只是接受该值。如果#define myValue 7和调用myValue的程序,它的行为与只调用7时完全相同。