This question already has answers here:
How do C++ class members get initialized if I don't do it explicitly?
(8 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I'm doing C++ tests for my certification exam and I came across this exercise that i don't understand:
(the question is what is the output of the following program)
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A {
public :
float v;
float set(float v) {
A::v += 1.0;
A::v = v+1.0;
return v;
}
float get(float v){
v +=A::v;
return v;
}
};
int main()
{
A a;
cout<< a.get(a.set(a.set(0.5)));
return 0;
}
I expected to have an error on the first line of the set function since A::v was never initialized, but my program compiles and it seems that A::v has value 0 by default..
Could someone please explain why there is no compilation error?
Like you mentioned, the first line of set used A::v, which was never initialized before. However, that itself doesn't produce an error, it is undefined behavior. What it means is the compiler may initialize it for you, or it might just pickup a random number it sees on the memory, or whatever they are pleased to. The C++ standard doesn't say what needs to happen, so it left the compiler to decide whatever is easy.
However, whatever happens on that line shouldn't matter too much in your code, in most cases. The reason is A::v will be re-assigned to v + 1 on the next line. So it should almost always print 2 at the end.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Returning an array using C
(8 answers)
Closed 6 months ago.
I wrote a simple c++ program where i am getting a simple float Array from a function. Then I call a function where the generated Array is a parameter of. I print the first value of the Array through the function. It works! BUT when i am declaring another array in the function before i print the value from the first array, the printed value is not the expected one. MAGIC!
CODE THAT DOESN'T WORK:
#include <iostream>;
float* getArray() {
float Array[] = { 4 };
return Array;
}
void compute(float* Array) {
bool newArray[1];
float content = Array[0]; //breakpoint: content will be -107374176.
std::cout << content;
}
int main() {
float* Array = getArray();
compute(Array);
}
OUTPUT: -1.07374e+08
When removing the line "bool newArray[1];" (line 10) the code starts to work.
OUTPUT: 4
Test it your self! Can someone explain me why this happens?
Your main function has a bug. It passes a pointer to Array to compute, which dereferences it. But Array is out of scope at this point since its scope ends when getArray ends. So you are trying to access an object that no longer exists. That is undefined behavior and produces completely unpredictable results.
Arguably, getArray also has a bug since it always returns a pointer to an object that no longer exists. So there is no way to use it. Whether or not that's a bug depends on what the caller is supposed to be able to do with the returned value which cannot be determined due to the lack of comments.
This question already has answers here:
Can a local variable's memory be accessed outside its scope?
(20 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I'm new to C++ programming and I am having some hard time understanding some concepts.
Take this code as a example:
// Example program
#include <iostream>
class nber
{
int* value;
public:
nber(int n)
{
value = &n;
}
int getNber()
{
return *value;
}
};
int main()
{
nber var(111);
std::cout << "The number is:" << var.getNber() << "\n";
}
As you can see, the nber constructor receives an integer n and passes its address to the "value" pointer. What I expected is to have some kind of unwanted behavior, since the scope of the received integer (n) ends as soon as the constructor end, but the output is:
The number is:111
So the scope didn't end? If it really didn't end, when is the memory used to store the variable n going to be released? Thanks.
The scope did end. What you're seeing is Undefined Behavior - anything can happen. The number could be "purple", as far as the rules say. Or your hard disk could be erased. The latter is a bit rare, though.
This question already has answers here:
Can a local variable's memory be accessed outside its scope?
(20 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I'm trying to understand how to use functions in C++ to return arrays. I want to understand what's going on here. This is my code, that I compile with g++ -Wall return_array.cpp -o return_array
#include <iostream>
int * do_something(int number){
int viz[3] = {1,2,3};
viz[2] += number;
return &viz[0];
}
int main(){
int *viz;
viz = do_something(3);
std::cout << viz[2] << "\n";
return 0;
}
which gave me the following error:
return_array.cpp: In function ‘int* do_something(int)’:
return_array.cpp:4:6: warning: address of local variable ‘viz’ returned [-Wreturn-local-addr]
int viz[3] = {1,2,3};
By my research, the error is due to the fact that I'm trying to access a pointer that has been deleted from the Stack once I leave the function's scope. However, if I run the code with a workaround:
int * do_something(int number){
int viz[3] = {1,2,3};
int *pointer;
viz[2] += number;
pointer = &viz[0];
return pointer;
}
it compiles and runs just fine. Isn't this new pointer in the precise same situation? Once I leave the function, it is out of scope and should be deleted from the Stack, by the same argument as before. What am I missing?
EDIT:
My question here is not whether or not returning the pointer to a local array produces an error. It should and it does. The question is why the pointer that has been assigned to the pointer to the same array does not!
Once control leaves the function, the array is out of scope. It might be erased, it might not. That region of memory might still contain those numbers for a while, and it might not. Trying to read it might work, or it might do anything. This is known as undefined behavior, and it is a difficult thing to detect and a good thing to avoid.
This question already has answers here:
C++ return value without return statement
(6 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I am confused with the following output in C++
int add()
{
int c = 2+3;
}
int main()
{
int x = add();
cout << x;
return 0;
}
This prints 5.even if we do not write return statement.
How this is managed in C++.
Please help.
This is UB. You're right to be confused - this can work one day and fail the next. Don't rely on undefined behavior.
If you want to know why it works, it's because parameters & return values are passed on a data structure called stack (well - usually; sometimes passed in the same register). Similarly, most implementations use this same stack for locals. Therefore, the int in add will be located in the same place as where the return value is expected (by your specific implementation) and your implementation doesn't invalidate memory when your int there is destructed. But it's still destructed, it's still UB and it might break in any second.
As the comments wrote, you might turn on warnings to avoid this kind of error.
This question already has answers here:
What happens when I print an uninitialized variable in C++? [duplicate]
(4 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
i am currently learning C++ and i had a question about some "weird" things i noticed while testing what i have learnt.
So i use this :
int marc[9];
int sum = 0;
for (int x =0; x < 9; x++) {
marc[x] = x*4;
sum += marc[x];
}
cout << sum << endl;
And i get a normal result which is 144
However, if i changed
int sum = 0;
to
int sum;
I got a crazy result like 19557555002
So i was wondering what is happening in the second case?
Thanks for your answer :)
You are operating on uninitialized memory in the second case. Non-static local variables are not initialized to zero by the runtime like in other languages, if you need sum to have a defined value, you must initialize it yourself. The 19557555002 will be the integer interpretation of any bytes that were present at the memory address allocated for sum.
Further reading: What happens to a declared, uninitialized variable in C? Does it have a value?
Its called an undefined behavior and it happens when you don't initialize your variables.
int sum;
above code can only declare a variable but it doesn't initialize it by default so the variable contains a garbage value.
this creates an uninitialized int int sum;
it can have "garbage" values, and this is exactly what happened to you
how this happens: let's say you use an int x in address y, and sets it to 19557555002. now, lets say you "leave" that address (go out of scope, program terminates, OS takes that memory...) and someone else takes it because he wants to put there a new int. if he just declares his int, without initializing it, his int can be stationed (if the OS so desires...) in address y, that previously used to hold your int, which means in address y, he will find 19557555002. That is what could happen to you if you don't initialize variables.
Memory for local variables is typically allocated on the stack. This means that without some initialization, they will hold some data that was residing there previously.
As others said it is undefined behavior, but practically, on most implementations, it results in effects like this:
void foo()
{
int a = 5;
}
void bar()
{
int b;
std::cout << b;
}
void someCaller()
{
foo();
bar();
}
On most implementations, this will usually result in the printing of 5 on the stdout.
Note that some compilers like MSVC initialize all variables in Debug configuration, but usually any kind of optimization flags will avoid initializing memory, if not explicitly requested.