Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Can a member struct be zero-init from the constructor initializer list without calling memset?

Tags:

Let's say I have the following structure declaration (simple struct with no constructor).

struct Foo
{
    int x;
    int y;
    int z;
    char szData[DATA_SIZE];
};

Now let's say this struct is a member of a C++ class as follows:

class CFoobar
{
     Foo _foo;
public:
     CFoobar();
};

If I declare CFoobar's constructor as follows:

CFoobar::CFoobar()
{
    printf("_foo = {%d, %d, %d}\n", _foo.x, _foo.y,_foo.z);
    for (int x = 0; x < 100; x++)
       printf("%d\n", _foo.szData[x]);
}

As you would expect, when CFoobar's constructor runs, garbage data gets printed out Obviously, the easy fix is to memset or ZeroMemory &_foo. It's what I've always done...

However, I did notice that if add _foo to the constructor's initialization list with no parameters as follows:

CFoobar::CFoobar()
: _foo()
{

That this appears to zero-out the member variables of _foo. At least that was the case with g++ on linux.

Now here's my question: Is this standard C++, or is this compiler specific behavior?

If it's standard behavior, can someone quote me a reference from an official source? Any "gotchas" in regards to implicit zero-init behavior with more complicated structs and classes?

like image 407
selbie Avatar asked May 12 '10 07:05

selbie


People also ask

Is struct initialized to 0?

If a structure variable has static storage, its members are implicitly initialized to zero of the appropriate type. If a structure variable has automatic storage, its members have no default initialization.

Are class members initialized to zero?

If T is scalar (arithmetic, pointer, enum), it is initialized from 0 ; if it's a class type, all base classes and data members are zero-initialized; if it's an array, each element is zero-initialized.

What is the advantage of using member initializer list?

The most common benefit of doing this is improved performance. If the expression whatever is the same type as member variable x_, the result of the whatever expression is constructed directly inside x_ — the compiler does not make a separate copy of the object.


2 Answers

Yes, this is defined behaviour according to the standard. 12.6.2 [class.base.init] / 3 : "if the expression-list of the mem-initializer is omitted, the base class or member subobject is value-initialized."

Be warned, though, if Foo wasn't a POD-type but still had no user-declared constructor (e.g. it had a std::string type) then some very popular compilers would not correctly value-initialize it.

All compilers that I know of do correctly perform value-initialization of POD members when you use () as the initializer in a constructor initializer-list.

like image 133
CB Bailey Avatar answered Oct 11 '22 09:10

CB Bailey


i find it hard to read the standard, but I found it I think:

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 Value-initialization for such a class object may be implemented by zero-initializing the object and then calling the default constructor.

Section 8.5

like image 30
Chris H Avatar answered Oct 11 '22 09:10

Chris H