Global value in header

Hi, I have what I think is a pretty basic question. I need to have a global value defined, prefferably in one of my header files. The value should be accessible to all the .cpp files that include that header. The problem with what I tried is that I get errors that the value has already been defined since it is included in each .cpp file. I need something like:

int programIsActive = 1;

I need to be able get and set that value from any of the .cpp files. What is the best way to do this?

(I am already using a #ifndef for the whole contents of the header file but that does not seem to help)

In the header, you have
extern int programIsActive;

In ONE source file, you have
int programIsActive = 1;

The problem with defining variables in headers is that they'll be included in every .cpp file and the compiler generates TWO or more variable_name symbols. Each symbol has to be unique, of course, so the linker complains.
Thus you need to define them in one .cpp file and tell the compiler that the variable exists in another .cpp file. This is usually done in the header as Salem points out.
(Of course, the compiler won't check, so if the variable does indeed not exist in another .cpp file, the linker complains.)

If you *really* want to keep it to a single header file, there is a way to do it - but I usually reserve this kind of trickery for when there's a good excuse for it.

Code:

---

inline int& ProgramIsActive()
{
    static int val = 1;
    return val;
}//ProgramIsActive

---

gg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Codeplug

If you *really* want to keep it to a single header file, there is a way to do it - but I usually reserve this kind of trickery for when there's a good excuse for it.

Code:

---

inline int& ProgramIsActive()
{
    static int val = 1;
    return val;
}//ProgramIsActive

---

gg

---

But doesn't that potentially make one global variable for each call to ProgramIsActive() - if the calls are from different source files.

--
Mats

Though when you're using const, it hardly matters. But when your global var isn't const, this practice shouldn't be used since it wouldn't be global.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Though when you're using const, it hardly matters. But when your global var isn't const, this practice shouldn't be used since it wouldn't be global.

---

But none of the above says anything about const, right?

My guess is that the "global variable" is either a reference count or a boolean to say "have we initialized <something>" - in which case you want to be able to modify it, and it really NEEDS to be ONE variable for everything. I'm obviously not sure what the original post is about, but I've certainly used the method of "a global variable is used to indicate if you need to do something because we got here the very first time".

--
Mats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C++ Draft Standard, 7.1.2, paragragh 4

An inline function shall be defined in every translation unit in which it is used and shall have exactly the
same definition in every case (3.2). [Note: a call to the inline function may be encountered before its definition
appears in the translation unit. ] If a function with external linkage is declared inline in one translation
unit, it shall be declared inline in all translation units in which it appears; no diagnostic is required.
[Note: a static local variable in an extern inline function always refers to the same object. ]

---

It should also be noted that in C++, inline functions have external linkage by default. I don't think this is the case for C. So this is C++ only trickery :)

gg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matsp

But none of the above says anything about const, right?

My guess is that the "global variable" is either a reference count or a boolean to say "have we initialized <something>" - in which case you want to be able to modify it, and it really NEEDS to be ONE variable for everything. I'm obviously not sure what the original post is about, but I've certainly used the method of "a global variable is used to indicate if you need to do something because we got here the very first time".

--
Mats

---

I don't think I've used the approach too much. I usually do MFC so that means I'm working with classes. But you're right, of course, I have used the approach sometimes.
The best thing to do is to avoid that trickery practice.

This kind "trickery" is typically seen in classes, static member functions, and certain types of singleton patterns.
In the case of a regular inline function, there's the danger of C code including the header and incorrectly using this construct. We could C++'ize the code to avoid that pitfall.

Code:

---

struct ProgramIsActive
{
    static int& Value()
    {
        static int val = 1;
        return val;
    }//Value
};//ProgramIsActive

---

The only other rationale I can come up with for avoiding this construct:
- Older compilers are known not to implement this correctly, but most modern versions do
- For the simple "global variable in a header" case - the typical construct as Salem describes follows the KISS principle.

gg

The appropriate pattern would be a singleton which contains any and all globally relevant program settings. This way you isolate all such variables to a single piece of code, you're not tempted to scatter various globals throughout different modules (or do it accidentally), and you'll stop hearing complaints about your use of globals ;) Fewer complaints, at least.

I dislike singletons for the same reasons I dislike globals but if you absolutely have to do it...

Or just stuck all globals into Globals.cpp and Globals.h. But the best way is to avoid them globals - use classes and local variables or even arguments.
I've had few need for a lot of global variables.

Hey, I used Salems suggestion and that is working ok. I try to stay away from global variables too but this one I need.

Thanks!