What are the signs of crosses initialization?

Consider the following code:

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
    int x, y, i;
    cin >> x >> y >> i;
    switch(i) {
        case 1:
            // int r = x + y; -- OK
            int r = 1; // Failed to Compile
            cout << r;
            break;
        case 2:
            r = x - y;
            cout << r;
            break;
    };
}

G++ complains crosses initialization of 'int r'. My questions are:

1. What is crosses initialization?
2. Why do the first initializer x + y pass the compilation, but the latter failed?
3. What are the problems of so-called crosses initialization?

I know I should use brackets to specify the scope of r, but I want to know why, for example why non-POD could not be defined in a multi-case switch statement.

The version with int r = x + y; won't compile either.

The problem is that it is possible for r to come to scope without its initializer being executed. The code would compile fine if you removed the initializer completely (i.e. the line would read int r;).

The best thing you can do is to limit the scope of the variable. That way you'll satisfy both the compiler and the reader.

switch(i)
{
case 1:
    {
        int r = 1;
        cout << r;
    }
    break;
case 2:
    {
        int r = x - y;
        cout << r;
    }
    break;
};

The Standard says (6.7/3): > It is possible to transfer into a block, but not in a way that bypasses declarations with initialization. A program that jumps from a point where a local variable with automatic storage duration is not in scope to a point where it is in scope is ill-formed unless the variable has POD type (3.9) and is declared without an initializer (8.5).

You should put the contents of the case in brackets to give it scope, that way you can declare local variables inside it:

switch(i) {
    case 1:
        {
            // int r = x + y; -- OK
            int r = 1; // Failed to Compile
            cout << r;
        }
        break;
    case 2:
        ...
        break;
};

It is possible to transfer into a block, but not in a way that bypasses declarations with initialization. A program that jumps from a point where a local variable with automatic storage duration is not in scope to a point where it is in scope is ill-formed unless the variable has POD type and is declared without an initializer.

[Example: Code:

void f()
{
  // ...
  goto lx;    // ill-formed: jump into scope of `a'
  // ...
 ly:
    X a = 1;
  // ...
 lx:
   goto ly;    // ok, jump implies destructor
 // call for `a' followed by construction
 // again immediately following label ly
}

--end example]

The transfer from the condition of a switch statement to a case label is considered a jump in this respect.

I suggest you promote your r variable before the switch statement. If you want to use a variable across the case blocks, (or the same variable name but different usages), define it before the switch statement:

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int main()
{
    int x, y, i;
    cin >> x >> y >> i;
// Define the variable before the switch.
    int r;
    switch(i) {
        case 1:
            r = x + y
            cout << r;
            break;
        case 2:
            r = x - y;
            cout << r;
            break;
    };
}

One of the benefits is that the compiler does not have to perform local allocation (a.k.a. pushing onto the stack) in each case block.

A drawback to this approach is when cases "fall" into other cases (i.e. without using break), as the variable will have a previous value.