scope of global variable vs. static

Hi all,

1) I had few questions regarding C++ static keyword. Is there any difference in scope between a in following two code snippets?

Code:

//myfunc.h
const int a = 1;

int main(...)
{
...
}

Code:

//myfunc.h
const static int a = 1;

int main(...)
{
...
}

2) What about the similar situation with the variables replaced by functions? Would static keyword make any difference in scope?

3) I also heard that in comparing declaring a const variable within any function versus declaring a static const variable in global scope, the latter is more efficient because it avoides stack allocation. Is it ture, and if so, where is the value stored?

I tried to look it up in a C++ reference book I have, but I couldn't find it there or online. I'd appreciate for any pointers. Thanks!

in example 2, a is private across translation units. IE it is given static linkage opposed to the default extern linkage. Same with functions. Static can be confusing because it has a dual role in c and c++. It can be used to describe the lifetime or linkage of an object depending on where it is used.

There is a distinction between scope and linkage. A file-static variable is global scope, but has internal linkage, meaning it is not visible to other modules at link time.

static:
If static is used inside a function, it means the variable won't ever "die": It is created once, and the next time the function is called it will remain the same, just as a global static variable private to the function.

If static is used at top level, It means this variable is only visible in the file. So you can have two files "foo.c" and "bar.c" compiled together. They both have

Code:

static int refcount(void) { ... }

in them. The linker won't complain. But if you miss the static, it sees two global definitions of the same function and will put out an error.

If static is used inside a class, it means the variable is shared among all instances of the class, so if 1 modifys it, the second will see it modified, too. If a function is static, this function can be called without an instance, such as

Code:

wxFileName::CreateTempFileName("");

2) The same for functions in your question.

3) Yes. The former one allocates space every time the function is called and fills it with something. The value is stored just as a local variable. The latter one is putting a new variable into global space, which is initialized when the program starts.

If I have any mistakes, please correct them.

No, 3) is not correct.
The compiler does not have to push a const value onto the stack. If it's a constant expression, the compiler can just ignore it (and replace every instance of it with its value).
There is a very good chance that any simple const types will simply be optimized away (ie no storage).
This applies to both local and global. If it did allocate it everytime, then obviously the global one would be faster. This might apply more to non-const variables.