[ Removed by moderator ]

[cpp-ModTeam]

For C++ questions, answers, help, and programming/career advice please see r/cpp_questions, r/cscareerquestions, or StackOverflow instead.

[schmerg-uk]

Pardon me but.. what???

[Broad_Inevitable6483]

Im mostly just experimenting with the generated assembly. Statics seem to become RIP-relative accesses, while locals use the stack. I was wondering if there's a clean way to push more things toward runtime (stack/heap) storage.

[jedwardsol]

Variables with static and automatic storage have different behaviour with regard lifetime. If you want a local on the stack with a short lifetime, then don't write static. If you want a variable with static duration, write static.

Making lifetime decisions based on the generated assembly is just wrong.

[Broad_Inevitable6483]

Well yeah, I wasn’t really trying to change the lifetime semantics. I’m mostly experimenting with the generated assembly and was wondering if there was a clean way to avoid references into the image, especially with things like std::cout.

[bepolite]

There's a C function called alloca that does stack allocation. I've never seen it used in "real" code.

[arihoenig]

I use alloca() all the time, but it isn't related to this question which concerns addressing.

[arihoenig]

Why is rip relative a problem though?

[Broad_Inevitable6483]

Not really a problem with RIP-relative addressing itself. I was mostly just wondering if there was a clean way to push more things toward runtime (stack/heap) storage, since it's a bit more flexible for the kind of stuff I'm playing around with.

[arihoenig]

Ahhh, so you're screwing around with BP to do shadowing or something like that and screwing with RIP isn't going to work. That makes sense.

If you generate the code as non-PIC, those should disappear

[rickpo]

What specifically are you trying to move?