C++ - Value of local non-initialized variables - c++

I was writing a simple program to test how the scope of variables works, but I'm obtaining unexpected results, so I was hoping you could give me an hand to understand them.
I compiled this code
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
void myFunction1()
{
int e;
cout << e << endl;
e++;
cout << e << endl<<endl;
}
int main()
{
cout << "MAIN" << endl;
int a,b,c,d;
cout << "a= " << a << endl;
cout << "b= " << b << endl;
cout << "c= " << c << endl;
cout << "d= " << d << endl<<endl;
cout << "MY_FUNC" << endl;
myFunction1();
myFunction1();
myFunction1();
}
and obtained this output
MAIN
a= -1617852976
b= 32767
c= 0
d= 0
MY_FUNC
32675
32676
32676
32677
32677
32678
So, there are two things I really don't understand
1) In the main() function I'm creating 4 int variables (a,b,c,d) WITHOUT initializing them, so I expect them to assume a different value each time I run the code. Strange thing is, the first variable (a) is always different, while the others always assume the same values (b=32767, c=d=0)
2) The function output is even stranger to me.
Again, I'm creating a variable e without initializing it, so the first time it assumes a random value (in the example, e=32675).....then, I increase it by one, so that it prints 32675 and 32676, and that sounds right.
But how come the second time I call the function, e keeps the previous value (32676)? I thought e was created each time I call myFunction1() and deleted at the end of the function, so that e assumed a different random value each time (since I don't initialize it). Why is the value of e stored even if the variable goes out of scope?

Uninitialized primitive values are simply not defined. They can have any value.

It is an undefined behavior. That's why it doesn't make any sense to analyze the behavior of this program.

In the main() function I'm creating 4 int variables (a,b,c,d) WITHOUT initializing them, so I expect them to assume a different value each time I run the code
This assumption is flawed. They may have a different value each time you run the code, but they may not. Anything could happen. The point of UB is that you should drop all your assumptions.
But how come the second time I call the function, e keeps the previous value (32676)? I thought e was created each time I call myFunction1() and deleted at the end of the function, so that e assumed a different random value each time (since I don't initialize it)
It does. If you replace "random" for the more correct "arbitrary", then the results you're seeing fit that pattern just fine.
It's just pure luck, and comes down to the state you're leaving unclaimed memory in at each stage of your program's execution.

A good way to help you understand this is to explain in terms of memory allocation.
When you run a program, a certain amount of memory that is not used is assigned to your variable.
Computers are lazy, the best way to delete a data is to forget where it is stored. When you assign a chunk of memory to a variable, you are telling the computer to remember where that certain data belongs to.
If it so happens that it was used prior to you assigning the memory to the variable, it will simply read (let's say 4 bytes for a common machine) and get the data from that location.
Hope that this helps =)

Related

References and variable names in C++ - how do they work in regards to memory allocation?

This is a multi part question based on a project I'm currently undertaking. I will try to make it as brief as possible while still fully explaining the question, so sorry if this is a bit long.
When it comes to std::vectors in C++, how exactly do they work with variables? For example, if I have the following code:
int myInt = 4;
std::vector<int> myIntVector;
myIntVector.push_back(myInt);
what happens? Does that area of memory inside myIntVector now have the same value of data stored inside myInt at the time of adding, but still completely separate them? Does the area of memory where myInt is stored get physically moved into a designated area inside of the memory of myIntVector?
Assuming I was correct on the last statement, why would std::cout << myInt still correctly print 4, assuming it was not changed, while std::cout << myIntVector[0] also prints out 4?
Now, for what prompted the question: the #define directive. I was experimenting with this for my project, and noticed something interesting. I used #define GET_NAME(variable) (#variable), which returns the name of the inputted variable as a character array. If I were to have the following code:
#define GET_NAME(variable) (#variable)
int myInt = 4;
std::vector<int> myIntVector;
myIntVector.push_back(myInt);
std::cout << GET_NAME(myInt) << "\n";
std::cout << GET_NAME(myIntVector[0]);
I would receive the following output:
myInt
myIntVector[0]
Why? Assuming the first statement from question 1 is correct, this is the expected output, but then we circle back to question 2. Assuming the second statement from question 2 is correct, this is the unintended output, as myInt or myIntVector[0] should be returned twice.
Thanks in advance!
When it comes to std::vectors in C++, how exactly do they work with variables?
All STL containers just copy values by default. So when you pass an int variable, it gets copied and the copy exist completely independently from the original value
why would std::cout << myInt still correctly print 4, assuming it was not changed, while std::cout << myIntVector[0] also prints out 4?
These are two different values, both equal to 4
If I were to have the following code, I would receive the following output. Why?
The macros just manipulate the text, and don't do anything fancy in your code. This statement:
std::cout << GET_NAME(myInt) << "\n";
Just turns into this under the macro:
std::cout << "myInt" << "\n";

C++ init multiple class object inside for loop gives the same memory address?

My code snippet is as follows, however when I have 2 self defined classes and I define them, and print their memory address:
for(int i=0;i<2;i++){
Engine b;
Strategy d;
std::cout<<"be:"<<&b<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"elm:"<<&d<<std::endl;
}
it outputs:
be:0x7ffd92aee2c0
elm:0x7ffd92aede70
be:0x7ffd92aee2c0
elm:0x7ffd92aede70
i was expecting 2 different sets of memory addresses, but they are the same. Can someone tell me how to init into different address?
i was expecting 2 different sets of memory address
There is no reason to expect that. By the time the next iteration begins, the lifetime of the automatic object in the previous iteration has ended and so the object in the next iteration can reuse the same storage i.e. it can have the same memory address.
Can someone tell me how to init into different address?
You cannot specify the memory location where an object of automatic storage duration is allocated. But, if you create two objects whose lifetime overlaps, then they must necessarily be stored in separate addresses. john has shown how to do that using an array in his answer.
The obvious way is
Engine b[2];
Strategy d[2];
for(int i=0;i<2;i++){
std::cout<<"be:"<<&b[i]<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"elm:"<<&d[i]<<std::endl;
}
but the real question is why you care that the addresses are the same. Most likely its not something you need to worry about.
Both of the variables that you have outputted should only have 1 unique memory address, be, which is equal to
0x7ffd92aee2c0
was outputted twice, with no change to it whatsoever.
Then
elm:0x7ffd92aede70
was the same scenario, you outputted it twice with no change, what difference did you expect?
The code is working perfectly fine!
Objects created within block scope are created each time the block is entered and destroyed each time the block is left. In case of a loop, your objects b and d will be created and destroyed with each begin and end of an iteration, respectively. So you will get "new" objects with each iteration, but the compiler is free to use any address (even the ones used for the object of the prior iteration), so it may happen that you see the same addresses again and again. But it might also happen that you get different ones. Anyway, it makes no sense to rely on memory addresses of object which's life time has ended / will end, so the more interesting question is: "why do you care about memory addresses of e and d at all?".
To bring some light into that what happens try the following code. It shows how objects are created and destroyed in the course of your program:
class TestClass {
public:
TestClass (int x=0) : x (x) { cout << "Constructing " << x << endl; };
TestClass (const TestClass& t) : x (t.x) { cout << "CopyConstructing " << x << endl; };
TestClass (const TestClass&& t) : x (t.x) { cout << "Moving " << x << endl; };
~TestClass () { cout << "Destructing " << x << endl; };
int x;
};
int main() {
for(int i=0;i<2;i++){
TestClass b(i);
std::cout<<"elm:"<<&b<<std::endl;
}
}
Output:
Constructing 0
elm:0x7fff5fbff780
Destructing 0
Constructing 1
elm:0x7fff5fbff780
Destructing 1

change pointer of char[] in c++

I had to write a program that declares char text[16]; and int number; and then fills it with input from the user. Then I have to call another function (without passing anything) and recall that data from the stack and display it.
I was able to find both of them
// This is the function that is called without passing any variables
int number;
char text[16];
cout << *(&text + 5) << endl; // This outputs the correct text but I can not figure out how to assign it to text
number = *(int*)(&number + 20); // This works and outputs the correct number and saves correctly to int number;
cout << "\tnumber: "
<< number
<< endl;
cout << "\ttext: "
<< text
<< endl;
I would like to know if there is a way to transfer the text from *(&text + 5) to char text[16];
What you are doing is going to result in undefined behavior. Depending heavily on the compiler and therefore in turn on the architecture. The proof being that when I compile and run your code with different optimization flags I get different results. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_overflow
The first expression *(&text + 5) evaluates to taking the address of the text pointer in memory, adding 5 to it and then dereferencing that to get a character value that is stored at that location. This can be pretty much anything on the stack at that time.
&number + 20 will definitely go off the "visible" stack, this is pointer arithmetic and will result in you adding 20*sizeof(int) to the pointer to the memory address of number on the stack.
If this is what you are intending to do then you should probably use strcpy as suggested by #JafferWilson
From reading the comments on the answer by Curious the answer is:
There is no proper way to read local variables in another function in C++ without passing them (or pointers to them or references to them) as parameters (or within objects you pass as parameters).
You can assign file scope (so called global) variables and read them in other functions. That is almost always a bad idea.
I get the feeling you might be coming from an assembler programming background to even try this sort of thing. You need to surrender a bit more to the structured programming paradigm.

C++ parameter passing queries (code examples and outputs included)

Again here i am because the course material for C++ was not taught very well at all. The question gives use several function definitions and calls to these functions and expects us to state the output and what exactly is going on. I have executed these functions and tried to come up with some rationale to what is happening but if someone could help me out that i would be very grateful.
function definitions (The names are all as given. I know the names are not very good):
void MyIncrementFirst(int * i) {
(*i)++;
}
void MyIncrementSecond(int i) {
i++;
}
void MyIncrementThird(int & i) {
i++;
}
void MyIncrementFourth(int ** i) {
*i = new int(0);
}
void MyIncrementFifth(int *& i) {
i = new int(69);
}
The calls to these functions have been defined as:
int * a = new int(42);
cout << "Result" << endl;
MyIncrementFirst(a);
cout << "first " << *a << endl;
MyIncrementSecond(*a);
cout << "second " <<*a << endl;
MyIncrementThird(*a);
cout << "third " <<*a << endl;
MyIncrementFourth(&a);
cout << "fourth " <<*a << endl;
MyIncrementFifth(a);
cout << "fifth " <<*a << endl;
Which produces the following:
first 43
second 43
third 44
fourth 0
fifth 69
Some of this syntax i have not seen before (e.g. *&) so i maybe completely wrong here.
First:
This seems simple enough. I am passing in a pointer to an integer, and then de-referencing the pointer and incrementing its value, so instead of incrementing the pointer i am incrementing the actual value it is pointing to. No memory allocation is used, and this function uses pass-by-reference in order to modify the value.
Second:
This is similar to the above, as the pointer is de-referenced to get the integer value from the pointer rather than the memory address. Now this function uses pass-by-value so a copy of the variable is used in the functions execution. This means that incrementing a here, will have no impact on the variable you passed in, the value of a will remain as 42, but the copy of the passed in variable will have its value changed to 43 during the functions execution.
Third:
My understanding is that the '&' operator is basically saying 'the memory address of ...' so this function will take the memory address of the passed in pointer, locate the value it points to an increment this by one. That is why 43 is printed. This is using pass-by-reference.
Fourth:
If i remember correctly the '**' syntax means a pointer to a pointer. This means that when passing &a to the function you are passing the memory address of the pointer so when you de-reference this pointer and set its value to a new int(0); you are actually overwriting the exiting data at this address (42 in this case) so the value 0 is printed. This uses pass-by-reference.
fifth:
I have not seen this syntax before (*&). I have looked up this syntax and i think it is basically saying 'pass me by reference not value' so it seems to be the same as de-referencing the pointer as mentioned earlier. Again, because this is pass-by-refence not value when the value is set to a new int(69); the current data at that location is overwritten thus 69 is outputted.
Edit: Forgot to include my question! I want to know if my thinking is correct, this is all exam prep so i want to be sure i am doing it correctly.I just want to make sure my logic is correct and if i have done anything wrong or missed anything would somebody be able to steer my in the right direction
Edit: (based on some commenter feedback)
Everything you have is mostly correct, save some confusion on your output values. However, what you have in #4 and #5 is actually not overwritten data, it's actually new data at a new address, which is assigned to the variable i. This is part of what an earlier commenter said about a potential for a memory leak. Since you're not deleting the old address before assigning a new one, that's where it could occur.
The &* syntax in the last one is a reference to a pointer. It's essentially the same as int** except you don't pass &a as the argument, it's just a
What you have there for number 5 is basically correct, but the reasoning behind it is missing the meaning of &*
You might want to clarify if you've run each of these function calls sequentially or one at a time, since your output is incorrect if you'd indeed run them sequentially as written.

What are some possible causes of program crashing when returning a value?

I have a bunch of code roughly equivalent to this:
bool test(double e, short a, short b, short c) {
// Things being calculated here...
cout << "debug_3" << endl;
return (1 - abs(cos_th)) < (1 - cos(e));
}
int main() {
// something...
cout << "debug_0" << endl;
if(test(e,1,2,0)) {
cout << "debug_4" << endl;
// Bunch of useful operations...
}
// something...
}
Running the code generates the output:
debug_3
After which the program crashes (displaying "The program has stopped working..." in Windows). I have never encountered crashing at value return and I don't know what causes it or how I could fix it. Any thoughts on the issue?
EDIT: Some more info:
In my builds I also verify that the values of cos_th and e are valid.
People seem to point to the second something as the source of problems but my problem seems resolved (i.e. no crashes) when I get rid of the if-statement with a call to test()...
The only things we can fix without knowing what system is, is to change the type of a b and c to unsigned short since they are just array indexes, and make sure they are within array bounds. You might also need to make sure this is not zero since you divide by the result:
sqrt((Xca*Xca+Yca*Yca+Zca*Zca)*(Xba*Xba+Yba*Yba+Zba*Zba))
Use cerr instead of cout to make sure the output is flushed but you still don't see debug 4.
Put more output inside an else condition or after the if: maybe the function returns false?
If you can't locate the error precisely, use a debugger.
Crash at return usually means that your function overwrites stack (and thus the return address) and your program jumps to nowhere. You can verify this by stepping instruction by instruction at the disassembly level.