Object creation and its memory Initialization in cpp [duplicate] - c++

What do the following phrases mean in C++:
zero-initialization,
default-initialization, and
value-initialization
What should a C++ developer know about them?

C++03 Standard 8.5/5:
To zero-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a scalar type (3.9), the object is set to the value of 0 (zero) converted to T;
— if T is a non-union class type, each nonstatic data member and each base-class subobject is zero-initialized;
— if T is a union type, the object’s first named data member is zero-initialized;
— if T is an array type, each element is zero-initialized;
— if T is a reference type, no initialization is performed.
To default-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a non-POD class type (clause 9), the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor);
— if T is an array type, each element is default-initialized;
— otherwise, the object is zero-initialized.
To value-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a class type (clause 9) with a user-declared constructor (12.1), then the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor);
— if T is a non-union class type without a user-declared constructor, then every non-static data member and base-class component of T is value-initialized;
— if T is an array type, then each element is value-initialized;
— otherwise, the object is zero-initialized
A program that calls for default-initialization or value-initialization of an entity of reference type is ill-formed. If T is a cv-qualified type, the cv-unqualified version of T is used for these definitions of zero-initialization, default-initialization, and value-initialization.

One thing to realize is that 'value-initialization' is new with the C++ 2003 standard - it doesn't exist in the original 1998 standard (I think it might be the only difference that's more than a clarification). See Kirill V. Lyadvinsky's answer for the definitions straight from the standard.
See this previous answer about the behavior of operator new for details on the the different behavior of these type of initialization and when they kick in (and when they differ from c++98 to C++03):
Do the parentheses after the type name make a difference with new?
The main point of the answer is:
Sometimes the memory returned by the new operator will be initialized, and sometimes it won't depending on whether the type you're newing up is a POD, or if it's a class that contains POD members and is using a compiler-generated default constructor.
In C++1998 there are 2 types of initialization: zero and default
In C++2003 a 3rd type of initialization, value initialization was added.
To say they least, it's rather complex and when the different methods kick in are subtle.
One thing to certainly be aware of is that MSVC follows the C++98 rules, even in VS 2008 (VC 9 or cl.exe version 15.x).
The following snippet shows that MSVC and Digital Mars follow C++98 rules, while GCC 3.4.5 and Comeau follow the C++03 rules:
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstring>
#include <new>
struct A { int m; }; // POD
struct B { ~B(); int m; }; // non-POD, compiler generated default ctor
struct C { C() : m() {}; ~C(); int m; }; // non-POD, default-initialising m
int main()
{
char buf[sizeof(B)];
std::memset( buf, 0x5a, sizeof( buf));
// use placement new on the memset'ed buffer to make sure
// if we see a zero result it's due to an explicit
// value initialization
B* pB = new(buf) B(); //C++98 rules - pB->m is uninitialized
//C++03 rules - pB->m is set to 0
std::printf( "m is %d\n", pB->m);
return 0;
}

Related

Confused by the difference about value-initializtion between C++ 11&14 [duplicate]

Consider the following code:
class A {
public:
int i;
A() {}
};
class B {
public:
A a;
int i;
};
int main() {
B* p = new B {};
std::cout << p->i << " " << p->a.i << "\n";
}
Compiled with -std=c++11 in clang++, p->i turns out to be zero, but p->a.i doesn't. Shouldn't the whole object be zeroed as long as its class doesn't have user-provided constructor?
EDIT: Since there are some extensive discussion in the comments, I think it's better to add some excerpt from the standard here:
To value-initialize an object of type T means:
if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) class type (Clause 9) with a user-provided constructor (12.1), then the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor);
if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-union class type without a user-provided constructor, then the object is zero-initialized and, if T’s implicitly-declared default constructor is non-trivial, that constructor is called.
if T is an array type, then each element is value-initialized;
otherwise, the object is zero-initialized.
To zero-initialize an object or reference of type T means:
if T is a scalar type (3.9), the object is set to the value 0 (zero), taken as an integral constant expression, converted to T;
if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-union class type, each non-static data member and each base-class subobject is zero-initialized and padding is initialized to zero bits;
if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) union type, the object’s first non-static named data member is zero-initialized and padding is initialized to zero bits;
if T is an array type, each element is zero-initialized;
if T is a reference type, no initialization is performed.
The second bullet of each applies here.
Clang is correct, per the C++11 standard plus relevant DRs
In the original C++11 specification, B{} would perform value-initialization, resulting in a.i being zero-initialized. This was a change in behavior compared to C++98 for cases like
B b = {};
... which were handled as aggregate initialization in C++98 but treated as value-initialization in C++11 FDIS.
However, the behavior in this case was changed by core issue 1301, which restored the C++98 behavior by mandating that aggregate initialization is used whenever an aggregate is initialized by a braced-init-list. Since this issue is considered a DR, it is treated as de facto applying to earlier revisions of the C++ standard, so a conforming C++11 compiler would be expected to perform aggregate initialization here rather than value-initialization.
Ultimately, it's a bad idea to rely on value-initialization to initialize your data members, especially for a class that has user-provided constructors.
It does indeed look like a bug (or, as pointed out in the comments, behaving according to C++03 despite specifying C++11). In C++11, value-initialisation should zero the members of a before calling its default constructor. Initialisation of B is governed by this rule of 8.5/7
if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-union class type without a user-provided constructor, then the object is zero-initialized and, if T’s implicitly-declared default constructor is non-trivial, that constructor is called.
The zero-initialisation should recursively zero-initialise a per this rule of 8.5/5
if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-union class type, each non-static data member and each base-class subobject is zero-initialized
and, of course, zero-initialisation of a should set i to zero.
It is not a compiler bug, it is a bug in your code. The compiler seems to be implementing the C++03 behaviour, but this has crucially changed in C++11.
These are some relevant quotes from the C++03 and C++11 standards
In C++03:
To value-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a class type
(clause 9) with a user-declared constructor (12.1), then the default
constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T
has no accessible default constructor);
— if T is a non-union class
type without a user-declared constructor, then every non-static data
member and base-class component of T is value-initialized;
(emphasis mine)
In C++11:
To value-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a (possibly
cv-qualified) class type (Clause 9) with a user-provided constructor
(12.1), then the default constructor for T is called (and the
initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default
constructor);
— if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-union class type
without a user-provided constructor, then the object is
zero-initialized and, if T’s implicitly-declared default constructor
is non-trivial, that constructor is called.
and
To zero-initialize an object or reference of type T means:
— if T is a
scalar type (3.9), the object is set to the value 0 (zero), taken as
an integral constant expression, converted to T;
if T is a
(possibly cv-qualified) non-union class type, each non-static data
member and each base-class subobject is zero-initialized and padding
is initialized to zero bits;
Note: The following only applies to C++03:
Either remove A's user-provided constructor, or change it to
A() : i() {}
When you value-initialize a B here,
B* p = new B {};
it value-initializes its data members. Since A has a default constructor, the value-initialization results in a call to that. But that constructor does not explicitly initialize A::i, so it gets default-initialized, which for an int means no initialization is performed.
If you had not provided a default constructor for A, then the data member would get zero-initialized when an A is value-initialized.
Integral types are not required to be initialized to a value like that in a non-default constructor (since you have provided a constructor)
Change your constructor to A() : i(0) {}.

Does a default constructor always initialize all members?

I could swear I don't remember having seen this before, and I'm having trouble believing my eyes:
Does an implicitly-defined default constructor for a non-aggregate class initialize its members or no?
In Visual C++, when I run this innocent-looking code...
#include <string>
struct S { int a; std::string b; };
int main() { return S().a; }
... to my astonishment, it returns a non-zero value! But if I remove field b, then it returns zero.
I've tried this on all versions of VC++ I can get my hands on, and it seems to do this on all of them.
But when I try it on Clang and GCC, the values are initialized to zero, whether I try it in C++98 mode or C++11 mode.
What's the correct behavior? Is it not guaranteed to be zero?
Quoting C++11:
5.2.3 Explicit type conversion (functional notation) [expr.type.conv]
2 The expression T(), where T is a simple-type-specifier or typename-specifier for a non-array complete object type or the (possibly cv-qualified) void type, creates a prvalue of the specified type,which is value-initialized (8.5; no initialization is done for the void() case). [...]
8.5 Initializers [dcl.init]
7 To value-initialize an object of type T means:
...
if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-union class type without a user-provided constructor, then the object is zero-initialized and, if T's implicitly-declared default constructor is non-trivial, that constructor is called.
...
So in C++11, S().a should be zero: the object is zero-initialized before the constructor gets called, and the constructor never changes the value of a to anything else.
Prior to C++11, value initialization had a different description. Quoting N1577 (roughly C++03):
To value-initialize an object of type T means:
...
if T is a non-union class type without a user-declared constructor, then every non-static data member and base-class component of T is value-initialized;
...
otherwise, the object is zero-initialized
Here, value initialization of S did not call any constructor, but caused value initialization of its a and b members. Value initialization of that a member, then, caused zero initialization of that specific member. In C++03, the result was also guaranteed to be zero.
Even earlier than that, going to the very first standard, C++98:
The expression T(), where T is a simple-type-specifier (7.1.5.2) for a non-array complete object type or the (possibly cv-qualified) void type, creates an rvalue of the specified type, whose value is determined by default-initialization (8.5; no initialization is done for the void() case).
To default-initialize an object of type T means:
if T is a non-POD class type (clause 9), the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor);
...
otherwise, the storage for the object is zero-initialized.
So based on that very first standard, VC++ is correct: when you add a std::string member, S becomes a non-POD type, and non-POD types don't get zero initialization, they just have their constructor called. The implicitly generated default constructor for S does not initialise the a member.
So all compilers can be said to be correct, just following different versions of the standard.
As reported by #Columbo in the comments, later versions of VC++ do cause the a member to be initialized, in accordance with more recent versions of the C++ standard.
(All quotes in the first section are from N3337, C++11 FD with editorial changes)
I cannot reproduce the behavior with the VC++ on rextester. Presumably the bug (see below) is already fixed in the version they are using, but not in yours - #Drop reports that the latest release, VS 2013 Update 4, fails the assertion - while the VS 2015 preview passes them.
Just to avoid misunderstandings: S is indeed an aggregate. [dcl.init.aggr]/1:
An aggregate is an array or a class (Clause 9) with no user-provided
constructors (12.1), no private or protected non-static data members
(Clause 11), no base classes (Clause 10), and no virtual functions
(10.3).
That is irrelevant though.
The semantics of value initialization are important. [dcl.init]/11:
An object whose initializer is an empty set of parentheses, i.e.,
(), shall be value-initialized.
[dcl.init]/8:
To value-initialize an object of type T means:
if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) class type (Clause 9) with either no default constructor (12.1) or a
default constructor that is user-provided or deleted, then the object is default-initialized;
if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) class type without a user-provided or deleted default constructor, then the object is zero-initialized and the semantic constraints for default-initialization are checked, and if T has a non-trivial default constructor, the object is default-initialized;
[..]
Clearly this holds regardless of whether b is in S or not. So at least in C++11 in both cases a should be zero. Clang and GCC show the correct behavior.
And now let's have a look at the C++03 FD:
To value-initialize an object of type T means:
if T is a class type (clause 9) with a user-declared constructor (12.1) [..]
if T is a non-union class type without a user-declared constructor, then every non-static data member and base-class
component of T is value-initialized;
if T is an array type, then each element is value-initialized;
otherwise, the object is zero-initialized
That is, even in C++03 (where the above quote in [dcl.init]/11 also exists in /7), a should be 0 in both cases.
Again, both GCC and Clang are correct with -std=c++03.
As shown in hvd's answer, your version is compliant for C++98, and C++98 only.

3 types of Initializations [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What do the following phrases mean in C++: zero-, default- and value-initialization?
Today I came to know about 3 types of initialization in C++:
Zero Initialization
Default Initialization
Value Initialization
I have googled about it but I found no satisfactory results. All I get is a few standards. What I have understood until now is this: in case of value initialization, a data member can get value equal to zero in some cases.
Please elaborate them (standards) with examples. Also please don't just provide the text from the standard.
Thanks
The types of initialization refer to the language grammar. Here are two examples:
T * p1 = new T;
T * p2 = new T();
The object *p1 is default-initialized, and the object *p2 is value-initialized.
The effect of the initialization depends on the type T: 1) If T is a fundamental, then default-initialization does nothing (i.e. the object is left uninitialized), while value initialization equals zero initialization in that case and means the object is set to zero.
2) If T is an aggregate (i.e. class without constructors or destructor or assignment operator), then each element is recursively default- or value-initialized.
3) If T is of class-type and does have user-defined constructors, then both default- and value-initialization cause a call to the default constructor.
Note that member objects of classes with constructors can in turn be default- or value-initialized:
struct Foo {
int x;
int y;
Foo() : x() { }
};
Now when you say Foo a; then a is default-initialized, so the default constructor is called. This in turn causes a.x to be value-, i.e. zero-initialized, while a.y remains default-, i.e. un-initialized.
(Note that it's not really possible to value-initialize an automatic object, though in C++11, brace-initialization may be used to cause value-initialization, as in Foo a{};. (This behaves exactly the same as Foo a; in our example, consequent to the third paragraph.))
This is dealt with in 8.5 Initializers [dcl.init].
Zero Initialization
5/ To zero-initialize an object or reference of type T means:
— if T is a scalar type (3.9), the object is set to the value 0 (zero), taken as an integral constant expression, converted to T. As specified in 4.10, converting an integral constant expression whose value is 0 to a pointer type results in a null pointer
value.
— if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-union class type, each non-static data member and each base-class subobject is zero-initialized and padding is initialized to zero bits;
— if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) union type, the object’s first non-static named data member is zeroinitialized and padding is initialized to zero bits;
— if T is an array type, each element is zero-initialized;
— if T is a reference type, no initialization is performed.
Basically, it's equivalent to a memset(&obj, 0, sizeof(objt));, except that it account that the memory representation of a null pointer might not be a 0 value (even though it is represented by a 0 in the language).
// foo.cpp
static char const* p; // p is zero-initialized
// during static initialization
static void init() {
if (!p) { p = new char[500]; } // fine as p has been 0-initialized
}
Note: personally I still prefer to use = nullptr to initialize p, just to make the intent clear...
Default Initialization
6/ To default-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) class type (Clause 9), the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor);
— if T is an array type, each element is default-initialized;
— otherwise, no initialization is performed.
If a program calls for the default initialization of an object of a const-qualified type T, T shall be a class type with a user-provided default constructor.
Or basically, a call to the default constructor, accounting for arrays, at least for classes. The last point is a caveat for built-ins (such as int). Those are simply left as is (with garbage inside).
Default initialization is what is called when you defined a variable but do not initialize it explicitly. It is also what happens to attributes of a class that are not listed in the initializer list. So the caveat for built-ins is quite important to a programmer.
int function() {
int a; // <-- a is default-initialized (which means nothing happens...)
return a; // <-- uses a, so technically undefined behavior
}
struct A { int a; A() {} }; // During the call to A::A(),
// A::a is default-initialized (nothing happens...)
The absence of explicit initialization is a left-over from C. It's normally so for optimization reasons but leads to Undefined Behavior if one attempts to use the value...
Value Initialization
7/ To value-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) class type (Clause 9) with a user-provided constructor (12.1), then the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor);
— if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-union class type without a user-provided constructor, then the object is zero-initialized and, if T’s implicitly-declared default constructor is non-trivial, that constructor is called.
— if T is an array type, then each element is value-initialized;
— otherwise, the object is zero-initialized.
An object that is value-initialized is deemed to be constructed and thus subject to provisions of this International Standard applying to “constructed” objects, objects “for which the constructor has completed,” etc., even if no constructor is invoked for the object’s initialization.
It is a mix of both the above, meaning that the following syntax:
template <typename T> T value() { return T(); }
^~~
provides a suitably initialized instance of T whether T is a class type or a built-in type. It's important for templated code to be able to have such a unified syntax.
Note that with C++11, it is also possible to use T{} to achieve the same effect (which helps disambiguates from functions).

Default initialization of POD vs. non-POD class types

The C++ standard says (8.5/5):
To default-initialize an object of type T means:
If T is a non-POD class type (clause 9), the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no
accessible default constructor).
If T is an array type, each element is default-initialized.
Otherwise, the object is zero-initialized.
With this code
struct Int { int i; };
int main()
{
Int a;
}
the object a is default-initialized, but clearly a.i is not necessarily equal to 0 . Doesn't that contradict the standard, as Int is POD and is not an array ?
Edit Changed from class to struct so that Int is a POD.
From 8.5.9 of the 2003 standard:
If no initializer is specified for an object, and the object is of
(possibly cv-qualified) non-POD class type (or array thereof), the
object shall be default-initialized; if the object is of
const-qualified type, the underlying class type shall have a
user-declared default constructor. Otherwise, if no initializer is
specified for a nonstatic object, the object and its subobjects, if
any, have an indeterminate initial value); if the object or any of
its subobjects are of const-qualified type, the program is ill-formed.
The class you show is a POD, so the highlighted part applies, and your object will not be initialized at all (so section 8.5/5, which you quote, does not apply at all).
Edit: As per your comment, here the quote from section 8.5/5 of the final working draft of the current standard (I don't have the real standard, but the FDIS is supposedly very close):
To default-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a (possibly
cv-qualified) class type (Clause 9), the default constructor for T is
called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible
default constructor);
— if T is an array type, each element is
default-initialized;
— otherwise, no initialization is performed.
Your variable is not initialized.
Use
Int a = Int();
to initialize your POD or declare a standard constructor to make it non POD;
But you can also use your POD uninitialized for performance reasons like:
Int a;
a.i = 5;
No, the object a is not default-initialized. If you want to default-initialize it, you have to say:
Int a = Int() ;

Difference between default-initialize and value-initialize in C++03?

I had always thought that creating a new object would always call the default constructor on an object, and whether the constructor was explicit or automatically generated by the compiler made no difference. According to this highly regarded answer to a different question, this changed in a subtle way between C++98 and C++03 and now works like so:
struct B { ~B(); int m; }; // non-POD, compiler generated default ctor
new B; // default-initializes (leaves B::m uninitialized)
new B(); // value-initializes B which zero-initializes all fields since its default ctor is compiler generated as opposed to user-defined.
Can anyone tell me:
Why was the standard changed, i.e. what advantage does this give or what is now possible that wasn't before;
What exacly do the terms "default-initialize" and "value-initialize" represent?
What's the relevant part of the standard?
I do not know what the rationales around the change (or how the standard was before), but on how it is, basically default-initialization is either calling a user defined constructor or doing nothing (lots of hand-waving here: this is recursively applied to each subobject, which means that the subobjects with a default constructor will be initialized, the subobjects with no user defined constructors will be left uninitialized).
This falls within the only pay for what you want philosophy of the language and is compatible with C in all the types that are C compatible. On the other hand, you can request value-initialization, and that is the equivalent to calling the default constructor for objects that have it or initializing to 0 converted to the appropriate type for the rest of the subobjects.
This is described in §8.5 Initializers, and it is not trivial to navigate through. The definitions for zero-initialize, default-initialize and value-initialize are the 5th paragraph:
To zero-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a scalar type (3.9), the object is set to the value of 0 (zero) converted to T;
— if T is a non-union class type, each nonstatic data member and each base-class subobject is zeroinitialized;
— if T is a union type, the object’s first named data member89) is zero-initialized;
— if T is an array type, each element is zero-initialized;
— if T is a reference type, no initialization is performed.
To default-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a non-POD class type (clause 9), the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor);
— if T is an array type, each element is default-initialized;
— otherwise, the object is zero-initialized.
To value-initialize an object of type T means:
— if T is a class type (clause 9) with a user-declared constructor (12.1), then the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor);
— if T is a non-union class type without a user-declared constructor, then every non-static data member and base-class component of T is value-initialized;
— if T is an array type, then each element is value-initialized;
— otherwise, the object is zero-initialized
A program that calls for default-initialization or value-initialization of an entity of reference type is illformed. If T is a cv-qualified type, the cv-unqualified version of T is used for these definitions of zeroinitialization, default-initialization, and value-initialization.