Anonymous namespace vs static

[gauravbjain]

I am planning to move from ‘static’ keyword to anonymous namespace for
variables/functions which are local to a translation unit. This is to
move code closer to C++, since static for file level names is
deprecated by standard.
I am queries if doing this may have any downside associated with it,
since it would give external linkage to all these names? May be size
increase of generated object files which I believe should be taken
care by final symbol stripping. Suggestions?

--

 

[Marcel Müller]

Hi,

I am planning to move from ‘static’ keyword to anonymous namespace for
variables/functions which are local to a translation unit. This is to
move code closer to C++, since static for file level names is
deprecated by standard.

static linkage is deprecated?
Well, the second meaning of static has always been a bit confusing for
beginners. But the anonymous namspaces are none the better. The have
also an excemption: the implicit using statement.

I am queries if doing this may have any downside associated with it,
since it would give external linkage to all these names?

I don't think so. Since the namespace has no name, the functions cannot
be exposed by a biunique global symbol name anyway.

May be size
increase of generated object files
which I believe should be taken
care by final symbol stripping.
Suggestions?

Simply do it.


Marcel

 

[Rolf Magnus]

static linkage is deprecated?
Yes.

Well, the second meaning of static has always been a bit confusing for
beginners.

So this one is the second? Who numbered them?

But the anonymous namspaces are none the better. The have
also an excemption: the implicit using statement.

Not sure what you mean by that.

I don't think so. Since the namespace has no name, the functions cannot
be exposed by a biunique global symbol name anyway.

The standard requires them to have external linkage. And the compiler I use
does actually provide them as external symbols using some unique prefix for
the symbol name. Why it needs to do this, I don't know.

 

[James Kanze]

[re definitions in anonymous namespaces...]

The standard requires them to have external linkage. And the
compiler I use does actually provide them as external symbols
using some unique prefix for the symbol name. Why it needs to
do this, I don't know.

Possibly for its implementation of export. (Seriously,
probably just because that's the simplest solution. Generate
the unique name, and for the rest, treat it just like anything
else. No special cases, no extra code, etc.)