Initializing A Variable With Its Default Constructor - c++

Question

Question:
Is there a difference between the following initializations?
(A) What exactly is the second one doing?
(B) Is one more efficient than the other?
int variable = 0;
int variable = int();
This question also applies to other data types such as std::string:
std::string variable = "";
std::string variable = std::string();
Background:
I basically got the idea here (the second code sample for the accepted answer) when I was trying to empty out a stringstream.
I also had to start using it when I began learning classes and realized that member variable initializations had to be done in the constructor, not just following its definition in the header. For example, initializing a vector:
// Header.h
class myClass
{
private:
std::vector<std::string> myVector;
};
// Source.cpp
myClass::myClass()
{
for (int i=0;i<5;i++)
{
myVector.push_back(std::string());
}
}
Any clarity on this will be greatly appreciated!

Answer 1

Edit
After reading again, I realized that you explicitely asked about the default constructor while I provided a lot of examples with a 1 parameter constructor.
For Visual Studio C++ compiler, the following code only executes the default constructor, but if the copy constructor is defined explicit, it still complains because the never called copy constructor can't be called this way.
#include <iostream>
class MyInt {
public:
MyInt() : _i(0) {
std::cout << "default" << std::endl;
}
MyInt(const MyInt& other) : _i(other._i) {
std::cout << "copy" << std::endl;
}
int _i;
};
int main() {
MyInt i = MyInt();
return i._i;
}
Original (typo fixed)
For int variables, there is no difference between the forms.
Custom classes with a 1 argument constructor also accept assignment initialization, unless the constructor is marked as explicit, then the constructor call Type varname(argument) is required and assignment produces a compiler error.
See below examples for the different variants
class MyInt1 {
public:
MyInt1(int i) : _i(i) { }
int _i;
};
class MyInt2 {
public:
explicit MyInt2(int i) : _i(i) { }
int _i;
};
class MyInt3 {
public:
explicit MyInt3(int i) : _i(i) { }
explicit MyInt3(const MyInt3& other) : _i(other._i) { }
int _i;
};
int main() {
MyInt1 i1_1(0); // int constructor called
MyInt1 i1_2 = 0; // int constructor called
MyInt2 i2_1(0); // int constructor called
MyInt2 i2_2 = 0; // int constructor explicit - ERROR!
MyInt2 i2_3 = MyInt2(0); // int constructor called
MyInt3 i3_1(0); // int constructor called
MyInt3 i3_2 = 0; // int constructor explicit - ERROR!
MyInt3 i3_3 = MyInt3(0); // int constructor called, copy constructor explicit - ERROR!
}

Answer 2

The main difference between something like:
int i = int(); and int i = 0;
is that using a default constructor such as int() or string(), etc., unless overloaded/overridden, will set the variable equal to NULL, while just about all other forms of instantiation and declarations of variables will require some form of value assignment and therefore will not be NULL but a specific value.
As far as my knowledge on efficiency, neither one is "better".