Before ask I'm not the native speaker pardon for my poor english
Reading some book about c++ and the book mentioned variables should be initialize after declared. Otherwise variable having a garbage value and this may cause some problem. This garbage values are random and not predictable, what if using this garbage value as a ID?
I tried to find relational topic an google and couldn't find any result
Please leave a comment of idea of references
When you initialize a non-static(local) variable and use/read/print it before assigning a variable to it, the action is undefined behavior.
When you encounter undefined behavior:
You cannot assume that there's any value in that memory space to begin with
You cannot assume that the value won't change throughout the code execution, therefore, it's not ideal to use it as an ID
You cannot even assume that the program will run, or it will crash/freeze/etc... as everything action from that point on is undefined
Theoretically, an undefined behavior permits anything to happen (obviously in reality there's many restrictions to try and keep it from doing everything and probably sending everyone your pictures, corrupt all your files and frying your computer afterward).
For example, with this piece of code:
int num;
int a = num;
int b = num;
When you print it out, a and b is not guaranteed to have identical value, or the program will run at all. It's different with each systems/compilers.
As such, one must never rely on an undefined behavior to act normally.
Quote from #AnT:
So in general, the popular answer that "it is initialized with
whatever garbage was in memory" is not even remotely correct.
Uninitialized variable's behavior is different from that of a variable
initialized with garbage.
However, never mistakes undefined for inconsistency/randomness. For a (pretty bad) real life example, a broken pipe may be unexpected behavior, but the stream of water that hits you isn't inconsistent or random (until the pipe is fixed, of course).
An example when undefined behavior isn't simply taking some garbage value and results in some bizarre stuff: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20140627-00/?p=633
Related :
Uninitialized variable behaviour in C++
What happens to a declared, uninitialized variable in C? Does it have a value?
Nothing guarantees that an uninitialized variable contains garbage. It may be garbage, but in fact, any access to such variable yields undefined behavior, which means that literally anything may happen. It may be garbage, it may be constant, it may crash, it may contain previously used data, it may work like expected, but only with some compilers, etc. One is not supposed to rely on anything that comes from such variable and build any logic based on that. And, certainly, it cannot be a source of uniqueness or randomness.
First of all you should not use garbage value as ID.
Since not detail about your question, I am Considering your id is an unique value also by using your ID you are going to retrieve some value.
if that is the case then,
you cannot because on each and every run your garbage value may change.
And Garbage value in the sense it may be a numerical alphanumerical even not a proper value may come.
I have just found a problem and I have no idea what it could be. I started learning programming a few weeks ago and I am learning about pointers.
I compiled exactly the same code in 2 different PC's. In the first, the program runs perfectly. In the second, it stops working when it reaches a certain line.
I use 2 PC's.
The one at my workplace runs Windows XP SP3. In this one, the program worked fine.
The one at my home runs Windows 7 SP1. It compiled the code, but the program did not work.
I am writing and compiling using DEV C++ and TDM GCC 5.1.0 in both systems.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main (void) {
int* pointer;
cout << "pointer == " << pointer << "\n";
cout << "*pointer == " << *pointer << "\n"; // this is the line where the program stops.
cout << "&pointer == " << &pointer << "\n";
return 0;}
The output in the first computer was something like:
pointer == 0x000001234
*pointer == some garbage value
&pointer == 0x000007865
In the second computer, it stops at second line.
pointer == 0x1
I do understand that the pointer have not been assigned to a variable. Therefore, it does not store any correct address. Even so, it should at least show the garbage value inside it, or a "0" to indicate it has not yet an address to point to. I know the code is right because it worked fine in the first PC. But I do not understand why it failed in other computer.
I know the code is right because it worked fine in the first PC
You know no such thing.
You have undefined behaviour, and one entirely valid consequence is a program that always works. Or always works except on Saturdays, or always works until after you finished testing and shipped it to a paying customer, or always works on one machine and always fails on another.
The behaviour is undefined, not "defined to some specific consistent observable mode of failure".
Specifically, the real risk of undefined behaviour isn't simply that the result of some operation has an unspecified value, but that it may have undefined and unpredictable side-effects - on apparently-unrelated areas of your program, or on the system as a whole.
Even so, it should at least show the garbage value inside it
It did. But then you asked it to dereference that garbage value.
Reading any variable with an unspecified value is itself Undefined Behaviour, so the first piece of UB is reading the value of the pointer.
Following (dereferencing) a pointer which doesn't point to a valid object is also undefined behaviour, because you don't know whether the unspecified value you illegally interpreted as an address is correctly aligned for the type, or is mapped in your process' address space.
If you successfully load some integer from that address, that is a third piece of undefined behaviour, because again its value is unspecified.
So, the worst-case immediate pitfalls (with hardware trap values and restrictive alignment) are:
read the unspecified pointer value, get a trap representation, die with a hardware trap
OR read the unspecified pointer value, interpret it as an address which is misaligned, die with a bus error
OR follow the unspecified pointer to an unmapped address, die with a segment violation
OR survive all the previous steps - by pure chance - load some random value from some location in memory. Then die because that value is a trap representation.
But your if your process just dies, reproducibly, you can easily debug and fix it with no ill effects. In that sense, crashing at the point of invoking UB is actually the best possible outcome. The alternatives are worse, less predictable, and harder to debug.
I do understand that the pointer have not been assigned to a variable. Therefore, it does not store any correct address. Even so, it should at least show the garbage value inside it, or a "0" to indicate it has not yet an address to point to.
It did! That was the 0x000001234.
Unfortunately you then tried to dereference this invalid pointer, and print the value of an int that does not exist. You cannot do that.
If you hadn't done that, we'd have made it to the third line, where the 0x000007865 would correctly represent the address of the pointer, which is an object with name pointer and type int* that does indeed exist.
I know the code is right because it worked fine in the first PC.
One of the things you'll have to get used to with C++ is that "it appears to work on one computer" is very far from proof that the code is correct. Read about undefined behaviour and weep slow tears.
But I do not understand why it failed in other computer.
Because the code isn't right, and you didn't get "lucky" this time.
We could analyse a few reasons why it appeared to work on one system and not the other, and there are reasons for that. But it's late, and you're just starting out, and since this is undefined behaviour it doesn't matter. :)
If we initialize array with 4 elements, for example:
int array[4];
Can we assign values like this because it is also taking 4 values:
for(int i=5;i<9;i++){
cin>>array[i];
}
Out-of-bounds access on an array has undefined behaviour, which is another way of saying "unintended consequences":
int a[4];
int b[4];
for(int i=5;i<9;i++){
a[i] = i;
}
In a debugger watch what it's doing and in particular watch what happens to b.
This may or may not crash, but it's still broken code. C++ will not always alert you to such situations, it's your responsibility as a developer to be aware of what's allowed and not allowed when accessing certain structures.
Accessing an array out of bounds doesn't always cause a crash, but it is always problematic. Try with i = 999999 or i = -9 and see what happens.
The problem with undefined behaviour is that it may appear to be working but these unintended consequences eventually catch up with you. This makes debugging your code very difficult as this out-of-bounds write may stomp a variable that you need somewhere else minutes or hours after the initial mistake, and then your program crashes. Those sorts of bugs are the most infuriating to fix since the time between the cause and effect is extremely long.
It's the same as how throwing lit matches in the garbage may not cause a fire every time but when it does cause a fire you may not notice until it's too late. In C++ you must be extremely vigilant about not introducing undefined behaviour into your code.
You are mixing up two constructs - the logic used to iterate in a loop and the indexing of an array.
You may use
for(int i=5;i<9;i++){
...
}
to run the loop four times. However, you many not use those values of i to access the array. The array index has to be offset appropriately so it is valid.
for(int i=5;i<9;i++){
int index = i - 5;
std::cin >> array[index];
}
No, you get an array with 4 slots. Those slots are
array[0]
array[1]
array[2]
array[3]
So your code is incorrect. It might seem to work, but its still wrong due to whats called Undefined Behavior, next week it might fail
Note. You are better off using std::vector in c++
can we allocate value like this because it is also taking 4 values:
for(int i=5;i<9;i++){
cin>>array[i];
No, we can't. Since the size of the array is 4, the only indices that can be accessed are 0,1,2 and 3. Accessing any other index will have undefined behaviour.
try to run it in any online compiler it is working.
The behaviour is undefined. Possible behaviours include, none of which are guaranteed:
- working
- not working
- random output
- non-random output
- the expected output
- unexpected output
- no output
- any output
- crashing at random
- crashing always
- not crashing
- corruption of data
- different behaviour, when executed on another system
- , when compiled with another compiler
- , on tuesday
- , only when you are not looking
- same behaviour in all of the above cases
- anything else within the power of the computer (hopefully limited by the OS)
I know the uninitialized local variable is undefined behaviour(UB), and also the value may have trap representations which may affect further operation, but sometimes I want to use the random number only for visual representation and will not further use them in other part of program, for example, set something with random color in a visual effect, for example:
void updateEffect(){
for(int i=0;i<1000;i++){
int r;
int g;
int b;
star[i].setColor(r%255,g%255,b%255);
bool isVisible;
star[i].setVisible(isVisible);
}
}
is it that faster than
void updateEffect(){
for(int i=0;i<1000;i++){
star[i].setColor(rand()%255,rand()%255,rand()%255);
star[i].setVisible(rand()%2==0?true:false);
}
}
and also faster than other random number generator?
As others have noted, this is Undefined Behavior (UB).
In practice, it will (probably) actually (kind of) work. Reading from an uninitialized register on x86[-64] architectures will indeed produce garbage results, and probably won't do anything bad (as opposed to e.g. Itanium, where registers can be flagged as invalid, so that reads propagate errors like NaN).
There are two main problems though:
It won't be particularly random. In this case, you're reading from the stack, so you'll get whatever was there previously. Which might be effectively random, completely structured, the password you entered ten minutes ago, or your grandmother's cookie recipe.
It's Bad (capital 'B') practice to let things like this creep into your code. Technically, the compiler could insert reformat_hdd(); every time you read an undefined variable. It won't, but you shouldn't do it anyway. Don't do unsafe things. The fewer exceptions you make, the safer you are from accidental mistakes all the time.
The more pressing issue with UB is that it makes your entire program's behavior undefined. Modern compilers can use this to elide huge swaths of your code or even go back in time. Playing with UB is like a Victorian engineer dismantling a live nuclear reactor. There's a zillion things to go wrong, and you probably won't know half of the underlying principles or implemented technology. It might be okay, but you still shouldn't let it happen. Look at the other nice answers for details.
Also, I'd fire you.
Let me say this clearly: we do not invoke undefined behavior in our programs. It is never ever a good idea, period. There are rare exceptions to this rule; for example, if you are a library implementer implementing offsetof. If your case falls under such an exception you likely know this already. In this case we know using uninitialized automatic variables is undefined behavior.
Compilers have become very aggressive with optimizations around undefined behavior and we can find many cases where undefined behavior has lead to security flaws. The most infamous case is probably the Linux kernel null pointer check removal which I mention in my answer to C++ compilation bug? where a compiler optimization around undefined behavior turned a finite loop into an infinite one.
We can read CERT's Dangerous Optimizations and the Loss of Causality (video) which says, amongst other things:
Increasingly, compiler writers are taking advantage of undefined
behaviors in the C and C++ programming languages to improve
optimizations.
Frequently, these optimizations are interfering with
the ability of developers to perform cause-effect analysis on their
source code, that is, analyzing the dependence of downstream results
on prior results.
Consequently, these optimizations are eliminating
causality in software and are increasing the probability of software
faults, defects, and vulnerabilities.
Specifically with respect to indeterminate values, the C standard defect report 451: Instability of uninitialized automatic variables makes for some interesting reading. It has not been resolved yet but introduces the concept of wobbly values which means the indeterminatness of a value may propagate through the program and can have different indeterminate values at different points in the program.
I don't know of any examples where this happens but at this point we can't rule it out.
Real examples, not the result you expect
You are unlikely to get random values. A compiler could optimize the away the loop altogether. For example, with this simplified case:
void updateEffect(int arr[20]){
for(int i=0;i<20;i++){
int r ;
arr[i] = r ;
}
}
clang optimizes it away (see it live):
updateEffect(int*): # #updateEffect(int*)
retq
or perhaps get all zeros, as with this modified case:
void updateEffect(int arr[20]){
for(int i=0;i<20;i++){
int r ;
arr[i] = r%255 ;
}
}
see it live:
updateEffect(int*): # #updateEffect(int*)
xorps %xmm0, %xmm0
movups %xmm0, 64(%rdi)
movups %xmm0, 48(%rdi)
movups %xmm0, 32(%rdi)
movups %xmm0, 16(%rdi)
movups %xmm0, (%rdi)
retq
Both of these cases are perfectly acceptable forms of undefined behavior.
Note, if we are on an Itanium we could end up with a trap value:
[...]if the register happens to hold a special not-a-thing value,
reading the register traps except for a few instructions[...]
Other important notes
It is interesting to note the variance between gcc and clang noted in the UB Canaries project over how willing they are to take advantage of undefined behavior with respect to uninitialized memory. The article notes (emphasis mine):
Of course we need to be completely clear with ourselves that any such expectation has nothing to do with the language standard and everything to do with what a particular compiler happens to do, either because the providers of that compiler are unwilling to exploit that UB or just because they have not gotten around to exploiting it yet. When no real guarantee from the compiler provider exists, we like to say that as-yet unexploited UBs are time bombs: they’re waiting to go off next month or next year when the compiler gets a bit more aggressive.
As Matthieu M. points out What Every C Programmer Should Know About Undefined Behavior #2/3 is also relevant to this question. It says amongst other things (emphasis mine):
The important and scary thing to realize is that just about any
optimization based on undefined behavior can start being triggered on
buggy code at any time in the future. Inlining, loop unrolling, memory
promotion and other optimizations will keep getting better, and a
significant part of their reason for existing is to expose secondary
optimizations like the ones above.
To me, this is deeply dissatisfying, partially because the compiler
inevitably ends up getting blamed, but also because it means that huge
bodies of C code are land mines just waiting to explode.
For completeness sake I should probably mention that implementations can choose to make undefined behavior well defined, for example gcc allows type punning through unions while in C++ this seems like undefined behavior. If this is the case the implementation should document it and this will usually not be portable.
No, it's terrible.
The behaviour of using an uninitialised variable is undefined in both C and C++, and it's very unlikely that such a scheme would have desirable statistical properties.
If you want a "quick and dirty" random number generator, then rand() is your best bet. In its implementation, all it does is a multiplication, an addition, and a modulus.
The fastest generator I know of requires you to use a uint32_t as the type of the pseudo-random variable I, and use
I = 1664525 * I + 1013904223
to generate successive values. You can choose any initial value of I (called the seed) that takes your fancy. Obviously you can code that inline. The standard-guaranteed wraparound of an unsigned type acts as the modulus. (The numeric constants are hand-picked by that remarkable scientific programmer Donald Knuth.)
Good question!
Undefined does not mean it's random. Think about it, the values you'd get in global uninitialized variables were left there by the system or your/other applications running. Depending what your system does with no longer used memory and/or what kind of values the system and applications generate, you may get:
Always the same.
Be one of a small set of values.
Get values in one or more small ranges.
See many values dividable by 2/4/8 from pointers on 16/32/64-bit system
...
The values you'll get completely depend on which non-random values are left by the system and/or applications. So, indeed there will be some noise (unless your system wipes no longer used memory), but the value pool from which you'll draw will by no means be random.
Things get much worse for local variables because these come directly from the stack of your own program. There is a very good chance that your program will actually write these stack locations during the execution of other code. I estimate the chances for luck in this situation very low, and a 'random' code change you make tries this luck.
Read about randomness. As you'll see randomness is a very specific and hard to obtain property. It's a common mistake to think that if you just take something that's hard to track (like your suggestion) you'll get a random value.
Many good answers, but allow me to add another and stress the point that in a deterministic computer, nothing is random. This is true for both the numbers produced by an pseudo-RNG and the seemingly "random" numbers found in areas of memory reserved for C/C++ local variables on the stack.
BUT... there is a crucial difference.
The numbers generated by a good pseudorandom generator have the properties that make them statistically similar to truly random draws. For instance, the distribution is uniform. The cycle length is long: you can get millions of random numbers before the cycle repeats itself. The sequence is not autocorrelated: for instance, you will not begin to see strange patterns emerge if you take every 2nd, 3rd, or 27th number, or if you look at specific digits in the generated numbers.
In contrast, the "random" numbers left behind on the stack have none of these properties. Their values and their apparent randomness depend entirely on how the program is constructed, how it is compiled, and how it is optimized by the compiler. By way of example, here is a variation of your idea as a self-contained program:
#include <stdio.h>
notrandom()
{
int r, g, b;
printf("R=%d, G=%d, B=%d", r&255, g&255, b&255);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
notrandom();
printf("\n");
}
return 0;
}
When I compile this code with GCC on a Linux machine and run it, it turns out to be rather unpleasantly deterministic:
R=0, G=19, B=0
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
R=130, G=16, B=255
If you looked at the compiled code with a disassembler, you could reconstruct what was going on, in detail. The first call to notrandom() used an area of the stack that was not used by this program previously; who knows what was in there. But after that call to notrandom(), there is a call to printf() (which the GCC compiler actually optimizes to a call to putchar(), but never mind) and that overwrites the stack. So the next and subsequent times, when notrandom() is called, the stack will contain stale data from the execution of putchar(), and since putchar() is always called with the same arguments, this stale data will always be the same, too.
So there is absolutely nothing random about this behavior, nor do the numbers obtained this way have any of the desirable properties of a well-written pseudorandom number generator. In fact, in most real-life scenarios, their values will be repetitive and highly correlated.
Indeed, as others, I would also seriously consider firing someone who tried to pass off this idea as a "high performance RNG".
Undefined behavior means that the authors of compilers are free to ignore the problem because programmers will never have a right to complain whatever happens.
While in theory when entering UB land anything can happen (including a daemon flying off your nose) what normally means is that compiler authors just won't care and, for local variables, the value will be whatever is in the stack memory at that point.
This also means that often the content will be "strange" but fixed or slightly random or variable but with a clear evident pattern (e.g. increasing values at each iteration).
For sure you cannot expect it being a decent random generator.
Undefined behaviour is undefined. It doesn't mean that you get an undefined value, it means that the the program can do anything and still meet the language specification.
A good optimizing compiler should take
void updateEffect(){
for(int i=0;i<1000;i++){
int r;
int g;
int b;
star[i].setColor(r%255,g%255,b%255);
bool isVisible;
star[i].setVisible(isVisible);
}
}
and compile it to a noop. This is certainly faster than any alternative. It has the downside that it will not do anything, but such is the downside of undefined behaviour.
Not mentioned yet, but code paths that invoke undefined behavior are allowed to do whatever the compiler wants, e.g.
void updateEffect(){}
Which is certainly faster than your correct loop, and because of UB, is perfectly conformant.
Because of security reasons, new memory assigned to a program has to be cleaned, otherwise the information could be used, and passwords could leak from one application into another. Only when you reuse memory, you get different values than 0. And it is very likely, that on a stack the previous value is just fixed, because the previous use of that memory is fixed.
Your particular code example would probably not do what you are expecting. While technically each iteration of the loop re-creates the local variables for the r, g, and b values, in practice it's the exact same memory space on the stack. Hence it won't get re-randomized with each iteration, and you will end up assigning the same 3 values for each of the 1000 colors, regardless of how random the r, g, and b are individually and initially.
Indeed, if it did work, I would be very curious as to what's re-randomizing it. The only thing I can think of would be an interleaved interrupt that piggypacked atop that stack, highly unlikely. Perhaps internal optimization that kept those as register variables rather than as true memory locations, where the registers get re-used further down in the loop, would do the trick, too, especially if the set visibility function is particularly register-hungry. Still, far from random.
As most of people here mentioned undefined behavior. Undefined also means that you may get some valid integer value (luckily) and in this case this will be faster (as rand function call is not made).
But don't practically use it. I am sure this will terrible results as luck is not with you all the time.
Really bad! Bad habit, bad result.
Consider:
A_Function_that_use_a_lot_the_Stack();
updateEffect();
If the function A_Function_that_use_a_lot_the_Stack() make always the same initialization it leaves the stack with the same data on it. That data is what we get calling updateEffect(): always same value!.
I performed a very simple test, and it wasn't random at all.
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int a;
printf("%d\n", a);
return 0;
}
Every time I ran the program, it printed the same number (32767 in my case) -- you can't get much less random than that. This is presumably whatever the startup code in the runtime library left on the stack. Since it uses the same startup code every time the program runs, and nothing else varies in the program between runs, the results are perfectly consistent.
You need to have a definition of what you mean by 'random'.
A sensible definition involves that the values you get should have little correlation. That's something you can measure. It's also not trivial to achieve in a controlled, reproducible manner. So undefined behaviour is certainly not what you are looking for.
There are certain situations in which uninitialized memory may be safely read using type "unsigned char*" [e.g. a buffer returned from malloc]. Code may read such memory without having to worry about the compiler throwing causality out the window, and there are times when it may be more efficient to have code be prepared for anything memory might contain than to ensure that uninitialized data won't be read (a commonplace example of this would be using memcpy on partially-initialized buffer rather than discretely copying all of the elements that contain meaningful data).
Even in such cases, however, one should always assume that if any combination of bytes will be particularly vexatious, reading it will always yield that pattern of bytes (and if a certain pattern would be vexatious in production, but not in development, such a pattern won't appear until code is in production).
Reading uninitialized memory might be useful as part of a random-generation strategy in an embedded system where one can be sure the memory has never been written with substantially-non-random content since the last time the system was powered on, and if the manufacturing process used for the memory causes its power-on state to vary in semi-random fashion. Code should work even if all devices always yield the same data, but in cases where e.g. a group of nodes each need to select arbitrary unique IDs as quickly as possible, having a "not very random" generator which gives half the nodes the same initial ID might be better than not having any initial source of randomness at all.
As others have said, it will be fast, but not random.
What most compilers will do for local variables is to grab some space for them on the stack, but not bother setting it to anything (the standard says they don't need to, so why slow down the code you're generating?).
In this case, the value you'll get will depend on what was on previously on the stack - if you call a function before this one that has a hundred local char variables all set to 'Q' and then call you're function after that returns, then you'll probably find your "random" values behave as if you've memset() them all to 'Q's.
Importantly for your example function trying to use this, these values wont change each time you read them, they'll be the same every time. So you'll get a 100 stars all set to the same colour and visibility.
Also, nothing says that the compiler shouldn't initialize these value - so a future compiler might do so.
In general: bad idea, don't do it.
(like a lot of "clever" code level optimizations really...)
As others have already mentioned, this is undefined behavior (UB), but it may "work".
Except from problems already mentioned by others, I see one other problem (disadvantage) - it will not work in any language other than C and C++. I know that this question is about C++, but if you can write code which will be good C++ and Java code and it's not a problem then why not? Maybe some day someone will have to port it to other language and searching for bugs caused by "magic tricks" UB like this definitely will be a nightmare (especially for an inexperienced C/C++ developer).
Here there is question about another similar UB. Just imagine yourself trying to find bug like this without knowing about this UB. If you want to read more about such strange things in C/C++, read answers for question from link and see this GREAT slideshow. It will help you understand what's under the hood and how it's working; it's not not just another slideshow full of "magic". I'm quite sure that even most of experienced C/c++ programmers can learn a lot from this.
Not a good idea to rely our any logic on language undefined behaviour. In addition to whatever mentioned/discussed in this post, I would like to mention that with modern C++ approach/style such program may not be compile.
This was mentioned in my previous post which contains the advantage of auto feature and useful link for the same.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/26170069/2724703
So, if we change the above code and replace the actual types with auto, the program would not even compile.
void updateEffect(){
for(int i=0;i<1000;i++){
auto r;
auto g;
auto b;
star[i].setColor(r%255,g%255,b%255);
auto isVisible;
star[i].setVisible(isVisible);
}
}
I like your way of thinking. Really outside the box. However the tradeoff is really not worth it. Memory-runtime tradeoff is a thing, including undefined behavior for runtime is not.
It must give you a very unsettling feeling to know you are using such "random" as your business logic. I woudn't do it.
Use 7757 every place you are tempted to use uninitialized variables. I picked it randomly from a list of prime numbers:
it is defined behavior
it is guaranteed to not always be 0
it is prime
it is likely to be as statistically random as uninitualized
variables
it is likely to be faster than uninitialized variables since its
value is known at compile time
There is one more possibility to consider.
Modern compilers (ahem g++) are so intelligent that they go through your code to see what instructions affect state, and what don't, and if an instruction is guaranteed to NOT affect the state, g++ will simply remove that instruction.
So here's what will happen. g++ will definitely see that you are reading, performing arithmetic on, saving, what is essentially a garbage value, which produces more garbage. Since there is no guarantee that the new garbage is any more useful than the old one, it will simply do away with your loop. BLOOP!
This method is useful, but here's what I would do. Combine UB (Undefined Behaviour) with rand() speed.
Of course, reduce rand()s executed, but mix them in so compiler doesn't do anything you don't want it to.
And I won't fire you.
Using uninitialized data for randomness is not necessarily a bad thing if done properly. In fact, OpenSSL does exactly this to seed its PRNG.
Apparently this usage wasn't well documented however, because someone noticed Valgrind complaining about using uninitialized data and "fixed" it, causing a bug in the PRNG.
So you can do it, but you need to know what you're doing and make sure that anyone reading your code understands this.
For the actual question, jump to question part. For an interesting real-world example of undefined behavior, keep reading :)
There was this enumeration:
struct EnumStruct
{
enum Enum
{
val0 = 0,
val1,
val2,
val3,
val4
};
};
and in some function we had this:
const int arrayCount = 6;
int arr[] = {
EnumStruct::val0,
EnumStruct::val1,
EnumStruct::val2,
EnumStruct::val3,
EnumStruct::val4
InvalidValue
};
Then there was a loop that put arrayCount elements of the arr into a file. This was the Prepare() routine for the unit tests. And the unit test was supposed to check for the presence of the InvalidValue in the file. I was assigned a defect stating that the unit test fails. It worked perfect on my machine though. After a couple of hours of debugging I noticed that InvalidValue is actually #defined as -1, and there is a missing comma after val4. You can only imagine the swearwords that came out of my mouth in the address of whoever wrote that code (which worked perfectly for more than 3 years, actually).
Now, as you can see, the array is actually comprised of 5 values - 0, 1, 2, 3, 3 but the loop writes to the file the 6th element as well, which is of course Undefined Behavior. Now, while technically it is undefined, on Windows with MSVC no crashes happen - it just writes the garbage that is at that memory location. The thing is that if the garbage happens to be anything but 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4, the unit tests will succeed.
Question: It appears that the .vcproj file of the UT's is somehow patched before the UT's are built. I don't know how they do it, but with their build out-of-bounds array elements are always 0. It seems to me that the whole virtual memory is set to 0 before program execution. What project setting is that? Or am I imagining things?
I mean, if it was just luck that there was a 0 sitting out-of-bound of an array, then upon multiple executions my luck would fail, wouldn't it? But it is always 0... I am confused.
By the way, when I build the same project the out-of-bounds element always has different values on each execution. Can you please explain this? Thanks.
To the actual question of is memory always 0 at the start? Well, it might depend. In general, when the OS provides you with a page of memory it will be cleared (as a security measure, so that you cannot read the values that any other process had in their memory), so in many cases you will find that uninitialized can look like 0, until memory is being reused in your own process, where you will get whatever you wrote before.
There are also some compiler flags that can affect it. To detect uninitialized memory issues, sometimes debug builds will write patterns to memory after allocation from the OS and before handling it to the program, and a different pattern after releasing the memory in the program before reallocating (to detect access to freed memory), so that it is simpler to identify what happened (if you see in a debugger that the value is 0xDEADBEEF, you will know that the memory has already been released by the program. You will have to read the compiler/IDE documentation for more precise information.
As you say, it's undefined, so the implementor is free to do whatever they like. I can't speak for Visual C++ at all, but I am aware of other products that do things like zero out memory when running debug builds so that things like invalid pointer dereferences will fail at the site of the fault. It's possible that Microsoft is doing something similar I guess.