问题
This is a follow up of this question.
As mentioned in the comments to the answer:
An inline variable has the property that - It has the same address in every translation unit. [...] Usually you achieved that by defining the variable in a cpp file, but with the inline specifier you can just declare/define your variables in a header file and every translation unit using this inline variable uses exactly the same object.
Moreover, from the answer itself:
While the language does not guarantee (or even mention) what happens when you use this new feature across shared libraries boundaries, it does work on my machine.
In other terms, it isn't clear if an inline variable is guaranteed to be unique across boundaries when shared libraries are involved. Someone proved empirically that it works on some platforms, but it isn't properly an answer and it could just break everything on other platforms.
Is there any guarantee regarding the uniqueness of an inline variable when it is used across boundaries or is it simply an implementation detail that I should not rely on?
回答1:
This is how I interpret the standard. According to basic.link/1:
A program consists of one or more translation units linked together.
It doesn't say anything about static linking nor dynamic linking. A program is translation units linked together. It doesn't matter if the linking is done in two steps (first create a .dll/.so, and then the dynamic linker links all dynamic libs + executable together).
So, in my interpretation, it doesn't matter whether a program is dynamically or statically linked, the implementation should behave the same: a class static variable should be unique (no matter whether it's inline or not).
On Linux, this is true.
On Windows, this doesn't work in all circumstances, so in my interpretation, it violates the standard in these circumstances (if you create a separate .dll, which contains the static, non-inline variable, and all other .dll's and the exe refers to this variable, it works).
回答2:
C++ currently does not have a concept of shared libraries. So the way inline behaves across shared libraries would be implementation- and platform-specific.
The fact that [basic.link]/1 states that "A program consists of one or more translation units linked together." doesn't quite mean that a program linked together with another, already linked module, should behave the same.
A lot of proposals have been submitted over the years to rectify the situation (N1400, N1418, N1496, N1976, N2407, N3347, N4028), none of which took off the ground. It's just hard to implement in a generic way, and C++ generally tries to stay out of implementation details. As GCC put it:
For targets that do not support either COMDAT or weak symbols, most entities with vague linkage are emitted as local symbols to avoid duplicate definition errors from the linker. This does not happen for local statics in inlines, however, as having multiple copies almost certainly breaks things.
MSVC does not expose any symbols by default. Any "external" symbol needs to be explicitly declared with a platform-specific __declspec(dllexport).
One can't claim Windows to be incompatible with C++ because of this. None of C++ rules are violated here, because there aren't any.
回答3:
Is there any guarantee regarding the uniqueness of an inline variable when it is used across boundaries or is it simply an implementation detail that I should not rely on?
It's up to you to ensure this (by making sure that all the declarations are in fact the same).
The compiler obviously can't check this and the linker doesn't bother. So if you lie to the linker (by not doing the above), then you will end up in trouble.
OK, since not everyone's getting what I mean by 'lie to the linker', I'll flesh it out a bit.
@oliv kindly supplied this link, which amongst other things says this (commentary mine):
Duplicate copies of these constructs [i.e. variables declare inline in multiple TU's] will be discarded at link time.
Which is fine, that's what we need. Thing is, you don't know which ones (obviously, only one is retained, so by extension, you don't know which one that will be).
So, if they differ, you don't know which one you're going to end up with and so what you end up with is (a particularly insidious form of) UB. That's what I meant by 'lie to the linker'. Because, by declaring your variables differently in different TU's, that's exactly what you did. Whoops!
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51374558/are-inline-variables-unique-across-boundaries