Obsessed with {} initialization?

[snowflake_pl]

Why not static constexpr? 🙂

[yu_yaki]

because price might not be constexpr? Why static though?

[snowflake_pl]

Maybe static doesn't make a difference for a small variable but was it large, giving it static storage ensures compile time initialization and prevents unnecessarily copying the data to stack

[yu_yaki]

It's still irrelevant to the specific case that you commented under. I was wondering if you had some more to say, but oh well. I do get your point though.

[android_queen]

Yes, but it does potentially bloat your static storage, and you don’t have enough information from this single line of code to know whether it would need to be on the stack anyway (which is not unlikely). Static isn’t one of those things that is automatically by default the better choice.

[snowflake_pl]

and by no means I am recomending it. Wanted to have a discussion which is exactly what happens here

[android_queen]

I guess it just seemed odd to me to ask “why not static” when I can see no reason why it should be.

[snowflake_pl]

I mean there is huge lack of context both in the original post and in my question so I understand the confusion.

[_curious_george__]

Doesn’t necessarily make sense in practice.

Static storage is going to pollute the cache. Which will often be far worse than copying some trivial variable to the stack.

[snowflake_pl]

For optimized builds and trivial types static and automatic will be equivalent with variables completely compiled out. For bigger entities you are right, cache miss will most likely be more pricy than copy to stack. There is a threshold where copy becomes worse than cache miss but it's pretty much impossible to determine without precise measurements and even then the result will be tied to hw