I'm testing the piece of code below:
#include <iostream>
struct foo
{
foo() {}
int a;
};
struct bar
{
bar();
int b;
};
bar::bar() = default;
int main()
{
foo f{};
bar b{};
std::cout << f.a << '\t' << b.b << std::endl;
}
The output is 0 21946.
Well, it seems that the object f is initialized with Zero initialization but the object b is initialized with default initialization. The default initialization of an int is a random number and that's why I got a 21946.
Why did I get two different kinds of initialization here?
I knew that the variable with static storage duration may be initialized with Zero initialization and it put at the .bss segment, this is a kind of static initialization. But foo f{} is obviously a kind of dynamic initialization. Why is f initialized with Zero initialization, instead of default initialization? Why does the compiler make two different behavior?
From cppreference:
Defaulted default constructor outside of class definition (the class must contain a declaration (1)). Such constructor is treated as user-provided
Therefore, none of the statements are value-initializations.
Both are default initialization because they have user-provided constructors. And the values of non-static data members leaves uninitialized (can contain an arbitrary number, including zero)
To do the value initialization for the defaulted constructor case, use the in-class declaration:
struct bar
{
bar() = default;
int b;
};
This is my code and you can also run it from http://cpp.sh/5lsds
#include "iostream"
using namespace std;
class X{
private:
int c;
public:
X(){}
X(int b){
c = 11;
}
int getC();
};
class Z:public X{
public:
Z(int n){
X(23);
}
};
int main()
{
Z z(1);
cout<<z.getC()<<endl;
return 0;
}
int X::getC(){
return c;
}
I need to have X(){} line since the child constructor needs to call the parent default constructor.
If you run the program from http://cpp.sh/5lsds you can see that the output is 0 while I expect it to be 11. Since the Z constructor calls X constructor with an int parameter and it sets the c value to 11 but the output is 0.
You should use member initializer list,
In the definition of a constructor of a class, member initializer list specifies the initializers for direct and virtual base subobjects and non-static data members.
e.g.
Z(int n) : X(23) {}
I need to have X(){} line since the child constructor needs to call the parent default constructor.
With member intializer list it's not required again (in this code sample).
For X(23); in the body of the constructor, you're just creating a temporary X, which has nothing to do with the base subobject X of Z; Then the default constructor of X (i.e. X::X()) will be used for it. i.e. it's equivalent with:
Z(int n) : X() { // initialize the base suboject X via X::X()
X(23); // create an unnamed temporary via X::X(int)
}
You don't invoke the constructor of the base class
Z(int n){
X(23);
}
This creates an unnamed temporary X object, and passes 23 to its constructor. It doesn't construct the X sub-object of Z.
In C++, we construct bases and members using the member initializer list syntax:
X(int b) :
c(11)
{}
Z(int n) :
X(23)
{}
The member initializer list syntax is pretty much equivalent to the assignment you do when a simple integer is the constructed member. But beware that more complex sub-objects will be default constructed first, and then have their assignment operator invoked. That could make a substantial (worsening) difference in performance to just specifying them in the member initializer list and constructing once.
OK, member variables can be used to initialize other member variables in an initialization list (with care taken about the initialization order etc). What about member functions? To be specific, is this snippet legal according to the C++ standard?
struct foo{
foo(const size_t N) : N_(N), arr_(fill_arr(N)) {
//arr_ = fill_arr(N); // or should I fall back to this one?
}
std::vector<double> fill_arr(const size_t N){
std::vector<double> arr(N);
// fill in the vector somehow
return arr;
}
size_t N_;
std::vector<double> arr_;
// other stuff
};
Yes, your use of member function in initialization list is valid and complies with the standard.
Data members are initialized in the order of their declaration (and that's the reason why they should appear in the initialization list in the order of their declaration - the rule that you followed in your example). N_ is initialized first and you could have passed this data member to fill_arr. fill_arr is called before constructor but because this function does not access uninitialized data members (it does not access data members at all) its call is considered safe.
Here are some relevant excepts from the latest draft (N3242=11-0012) of the C++ standard:
§ 12.6.2.13: Member functions (including virtual member functions,
10.3) can be called for an object under construction.(...) However, if these operations are performed in a ctor-initializer (or in a function
called directly or indirectly from a ctor-initializer) before all the
mem-initializers for base classes have completed, the result of the
operation is undefined. Example:
class A { public: A(int); };
class B : public A {
int j;
public:
int f();
B() : A(f()), // undefined: calls member function
// but base A not yet initialized
j(f()) { } // well-defined: bases are all initialized
};
class C {
public:
C(int);
};
class D : public B, C {
int i;
public:
D() : C(f()), // undefined: calls member function
// but base C not yet initialized
i(f()) { } // well-defined: bases are all initialized
};
§12.7.1: For an object with a non-trivial constructor, referring to
any non-static member or base class of the object before the
constructor begins execution results in undefined behavior. Example
struct W { int j; };
struct X : public virtual W { };
struct Y {
int *p;
X x;
Y() : p(&x.j) { // undefined, x is not yet constructed
}
};
While initializing objects in the initialization list, the object is not yet fully constructed.
If those function tries to access the part of the object which is not yet constructed then that is a undefined behavior else its fine.
see this answer.
OK, member variables can be used to initialize other member variables in an initialization list (with care taken about the initialization order etc). What about member functions? To be specific, is this snippet legal according to the C++ standard?
struct foo{
foo(const size_t N) : N_(N), arr_(fill_arr(N)) {
//arr_ = fill_arr(N); // or should I fall back to this one?
}
std::vector<double> fill_arr(const size_t N){
std::vector<double> arr(N);
// fill in the vector somehow
return arr;
}
size_t N_;
std::vector<double> arr_;
// other stuff
};
Yes, your use of member function in initialization list is valid and complies with the standard.
Data members are initialized in the order of their declaration (and that's the reason why they should appear in the initialization list in the order of their declaration - the rule that you followed in your example). N_ is initialized first and you could have passed this data member to fill_arr. fill_arr is called before constructor but because this function does not access uninitialized data members (it does not access data members at all) its call is considered safe.
Here are some relevant excepts from the latest draft (N3242=11-0012) of the C++ standard:
§ 12.6.2.13: Member functions (including virtual member functions,
10.3) can be called for an object under construction.(...) However, if these operations are performed in a ctor-initializer (or in a function
called directly or indirectly from a ctor-initializer) before all the
mem-initializers for base classes have completed, the result of the
operation is undefined. Example:
class A { public: A(int); };
class B : public A {
int j;
public:
int f();
B() : A(f()), // undefined: calls member function
// but base A not yet initialized
j(f()) { } // well-defined: bases are all initialized
};
class C {
public:
C(int);
};
class D : public B, C {
int i;
public:
D() : C(f()), // undefined: calls member function
// but base C not yet initialized
i(f()) { } // well-defined: bases are all initialized
};
§12.7.1: For an object with a non-trivial constructor, referring to
any non-static member or base class of the object before the
constructor begins execution results in undefined behavior. Example
struct W { int j; };
struct X : public virtual W { };
struct Y {
int *p;
X x;
Y() : p(&x.j) { // undefined, x is not yet constructed
}
};
While initializing objects in the initialization list, the object is not yet fully constructed.
If those function tries to access the part of the object which is not yet constructed then that is a undefined behavior else its fine.
see this answer.
Internally and about the generated code, is there a really difference between :
MyClass::MyClass(): _capacity(15), _data(NULL), _len(0)
{
}
and
MyClass::MyClass()
{
_capacity=15;
_data=NULL;
_len=0
}
thanks...
You need to use initialization list to initialize constant members,references and base class
When you need to initialize constant member, references and pass parameters to base class constructors, as mentioned in comments, you need to use initialization list.
struct aa
{
int i;
const int ci; // constant member
aa() : i(0) {} // will fail, constant member not initialized
};
struct aa
{
int i;
const int ci;
aa() : i(0) { ci = 3;} // will fail, ci is constant
};
struct aa
{
int i;
const int ci;
aa() : i(0), ci(3) {} // works
};
Example (non exhaustive) class/struct contains reference:
struct bb {};
struct aa
{
bb& rb;
aa(bb& b ) : rb(b) {}
};
// usage:
bb b;
aa a(b);
And example of initializing base class that requires a parameter (e.g. no default constructor):
struct bb {};
struct dd
{
char c;
dd(char x) : c(x) {}
};
struct aa : dd
{
bb& rb;
aa(bb& b ) : dd('a'), rb(b) {}
};
Assuming that those values are primitive types, then no, there's no difference. Initialization lists only make a difference when you have objects as members, since instead of using default initialization followed by assignment, the initialization list lets you initialize the object to its final value. This can actually be noticeably faster.
Yes. In the first case you can declare _capacity, _data and _len as constants:
class MyClass
{
private:
const int _capacity;
const void *_data;
const int _len;
// ...
};
This would be important if you want to ensure const-ness of these instance variables while computing their values at runtime, for example:
MyClass::MyClass() :
_capacity(someMethod()),
_data(someOtherMethod()),
_len(yetAnotherMethod())
{
}
const instances must be initialized in the initializer list or the underlying types must provide public parameterless constructors (which primitive types do).
I think this link http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/articles/17820/ gives an excellent explanation - especially for those new to C++.
The reason why intialiser lists are more efficient is that within the constructor body, only assignments take place, not initialisation. So if you are dealing with a non-built-in type, the default constructor for that object has already been called before the body of the constructor has been entered. Inside the constructor body, you are assigning a value to that object.
In effect, this is a call to the default constructor followed by a call to the copy-assignment operator. The initialiser list allows you to call the copy constructor directly, and this can sometimes be significantly faster (recall that the initialiser list is before the body of the constructor)
I'll add that if you have members of class type with no default constructor available, initialization is the only way to construct your class.
A big difference is that the assignment can initialize members of a parent class; the initializer only works on members declared at the current class scope.
Depends on the types involved. The difference is similar between
std::string a;
a = "hai";
and
std::string a("hai");
where the second form is initialization list- that is, it makes a difference if the type requires constructor arguments or is more efficient with constructor arguments.
The real difference boils down to how the gcc compiler generate machine code and lay down the memory. Explain:
(phase1) Before the init body (including the init list): the compiler allocate required memory for the class. The class is alive already!
(phase2) In the init body: since the memory is allocated, every assignment now indicates an operation on the already exiting/'initialized' variable.
There are certainly other ways to handle const type members. But to ease their life, the gcc compiler writers decide to set up some rules
const type members must be initialized before the init body.
After phase1, any write operation only valid for non-constant members.
There is only one way to initialize base class instances and non-static member variables and that is using the initializer list.
If you don't specify a base or non-static member variable in your constructor's initializer list then that member or base will either be default-initialized (if the member/base is a non-POD class type or array of non-POD class types) or left uninitialized otherwise.
Once the constructor body is entered, all bases or members will have been initialized or left uninitialized (i.e. they will have an indeterminate value). There is no opportunity in the constructor body to influence how they should be initialized.
You may be able to assign new values to members in the constructor body but it is not possible to assign to const members or members of class type which have been made non-assignable and it is not possible to rebind references.
For built in types and some user-defined types, assigning in the constructor body may have exactly the same effect as initializing with the same value in the initializer list.
If you fail to name a member or base in an initializer list and that entity is a reference, has class type with no accessible user-declared default constructor, is const qualified and has POD type or is a POD class type or array of POD class type containing a const qualified member (directly or indirectly) then the program is ill-formed.
If you write an initializer list, you do all in one step; if you don't write an initilizer list, you'll do 2 steps: one for declaration and one for asign the value.
There is a difference between initialization list and initialization statement in a constructor.
Let's consider below code:
#include <initializer_list>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <numeric>
class MyBase {
public:
MyBase() {
std::cout << __FUNCTION__ << std::endl;
}
};
class MyClass : public MyBase {
public:
MyClass::MyClass() : _capacity( 15 ), _data( NULL ), _len( 0 ) {
std::cout << __FUNCTION__ << std::endl;
}
private:
int _capacity;
int* _data;
int _len;
};
class MyClass2 : public MyBase {
public:
MyClass2::MyClass2() {
std::cout << __FUNCTION__ << std::endl;
_capacity = 15;
_data = NULL;
_len = 0;
}
private:
int _capacity;
int* _data;
int _len;
};
int main() {
MyClass c;
MyClass2 d;
return 0;
}
When MyClass is used, all the members will be initialized before the first statement in a constructor executed.
But, when MyClass2 is used, all the members are not initialized when the first statement in a constructor executed.
In later case, there may be regression problem when someone added some code in a constructor before a certain member is initialized.
Here is a point that I did not see others refer to it:
class temp{
public:
temp(int var);
};
The temp class does not have a default ctor. When we use it in another class as follow:
class mainClass{
public:
mainClass(){}
private:
int a;
temp obj;
};
the code will not compile, cause the compiler does not know how to initialize obj, cause it has just an explicit ctor which receives an int value, so we have to change the ctor as follow:
mainClass(int sth):obj(sth){}
So, it is not just about const and references!