views:

127

answers:

6

Suppose I have a class with private memebers ptr, name, pname, rname, crname and age. What happens if I don't initialize them myself? Here is an example:

class Example {
    private:
        int *ptr;
        string name;
        string *pname;
        string &rname;
        const string &crname;
        int age;

    public:
        Example() {}
};

And then I do:

int main() {
    Example ex;
}

How are the members initialized in ex? What happens with pointers? Do string and int get 0-intialized with default constructors string() and int()? What about the reference member? Also what about const references?

What else should I know about?

Does anyone know a tutorial that covers these cases? Maybe in some books? I have access in university's library to a lot of C++ books.

I'd like to learn it so I can write better (bug free) programs. Any feedback would help!

+4  A: 

If you example class is instantiated on the stack, the contents of uninitialized scalar members is random and undefined.

For a global instance, uninitialized scalar members will be zeroed.

For members which are themselves instances of classes, their default constructors will be called, so your string object will get initialized.

  • int *ptr; //uninitialized pointer (or zeroed if global)
  • string name; //constructor called, initialized with empty string
  • string *pname; //uninitialized pointer (or zeroed if global)
  • string &rname; //compilation error if you fail to initialize this
  • const string &crname; //compilation error if you fail to initialize this
  • int age; //scalar value, uninitialized and random (or zeroed if global)
Paul Dixon
I experimented and it seems that `string name` is empty after initializing the class on the stack. Are you absolutely sure about your answer?
bodacydo
string will have a constructor that provided an empty string by default - I'll clarify my answer
Paul Dixon
@bodacydo : Paul is correct, but if you care about this behavior, it never hurts to be explicit. Throw it in the initializer list.
Stephen
Thanks for clarifying and explaining!
bodacydo
@bod: string is not a scalar type.
FredOverflow
+1  A: 

Uninitialized non-static members will contain random data. Actually, they will just have the value of the memory location they are assigned to.

Of course for object parameters (like string) the object's constructor could do a default initialization.

In your example:

int *ptr; // will point to a random memory location
string name; // empty string (due to string's default costructor)
string *pname; // will point to a random memory location
string &rname; // it would't compile
const string &crname; // it would't compile
int age; // random value
Wizard
A: 

Members with a constructor will have their default constructor called for initialisation.

You cannot depend on the contents of the other types.

janm
+7  A: 

In lieu of explicit initialization, initialization of members in classes works identically to initialization of local variables in functions.

For objects, their default constructor is called. For example, for std::string, the default constructor sets it to an empty string. If the object's class does not have a default constructor, it will be a compile error if you do not explicitly initialize it.

For primitive types (pointers, ints, etc), they are not initialized -- they contain whatever arbitrary junk happened to be at that memory location previously.

For references (e.g. std::string&), it is illegal not to initialize them, and your compiler will complain and refuse to compile such code. References must always be initialized.

So, in your specific case, if they are not explicitly initialized:

    int *ptr;  // Contains junk
    string name;  // Empty string
    string *pname;  // Contains junk
    string &rname;  // Compile error
    const string &crname;  // Compile error
    int age;  // Contains junk
Tyler McHenry
+1. It is worth noting that, by the strict standard definition, instances of primitive types along with a variety of other things (any region of storage) are all considered *objects*.
True, but if the OP had read the standard, he wouldn't be asking the question, so I don't think it's confusing to use *object* in the general object-oriented programming sense of something of class type, as opposed to primitive type. :)
Tyler McHenry
"If the object's class does not have a default constructor, it will be a compile error if you do not explicitly initialize it" that's **wrong**! If a class does not have a default constructor, it is given a *default default constructor* which is empty.
Wizard
@wiz I think he literally meant 'if the object does not have a default constructor' as in no generated one either, which would be the case if the class explicitly defines any constructors other than the default (no default ctor will be generated). If we get too pedanatic, we'll probably confuse more than help and Tyler makes a good point about this in his response to me before.
@stinky: it's not pendantry in this case: consider this simple code: `class foo { public: int i; }; class bar { public: foo f; };` we don't have any costructor, but you can still instantiate `bar` and use it!
Wizard
@stinky472 That's what I meant, but wiz-loz's comment is worthwhile as well. A class that has some user-defined constructor but does not also have a user-defined default constructor will not have a default constructor at all. So failing to initialize an object of such a class would cause a compile error.
Tyler McHenry
@wiz-loz I would say that `foo` does have a constructor, it's just implicit. But that's really an argument of semantics.
Tyler McHenry
I interpret "default constructor" as a constructor which can be called without arguments. This would be either one you define yourself or implicitly generated by compiler. So the lack of it, means neither defined by yourself nor generated. Or that's how I see it.
5ound
A: 

If it is on the stack, the contents of uninitialized members that don't have their own constructor will be random and undefined. Even if it is global, it would be a bad idea to rely on them being zeroed out. Whether it is on the stack or not, if a member has its own constructor, that will get called to initialize it.

So, if you have string* pname, the pointer will contain random junk. but for string name, the default constructor for string will be called, giving you an empty string. For your reference type variables, I'm not sure, but it'll probably be a reference to some random chunk of memory.

George
+2  A: 

First, let me explain what a mem-initializer-list is. A mem-initializer-list is a comma-separated list of mem-initializers, where each mem-initializer is a member name followed by (, followed by an expression-list, followed by a ). The expression-list is how the member is constructed. For example, in

static const char s_str[] = "bodacydo";
class Example
{
private:
    int *ptr;
    string name;
    string *pname;
    string &rname;
    const string &crname;
    int age;

public:
    Example()
        : name(s_str, s_str + 8), rname(name), crname(name), age(-4)
    {
    }
};

the mem-initializer-list of the user-supplied, no-arguments constructor is name(s_str, s_str + 8), rname(name), crname(name), age(-4). This mem-initializer-list means that the name member is initialized by the std::string constructor that takes two input iterators, the rname member is initialized with a reference to name, the crname member is initialized with a const-reference to name, and the age member is initialized with the value -4.

Each constructor has its own mem-initializer-list, and members can only be initialized in a prescribed order (basically the order in which the members are declared in the class). Thus, the members of Example can only be initialized in the order: ptr, name, pname, rname, crname, and age.

When you do not specify a mem-initializer of a member, the C++ standard says:

If the entity is a nonstatic data member ... of class type ..., the entity is default-initialized (8.5). ... Otherwise, the entity is not initialized.

Here, because name is a nonstatic data member of class type, it is default-initialized if no initializer for name was specified in the mem-initializer-list. All other members of Example do not have class type, so they are not initialized.

When the standard says that they are not initialized, this means that they can have any value. Thus, because the above code did not initialize pname, it could be anything.

Note that you still have to follow other rules, such as the rule that references must always be initialized. It is a compiler error to not initialize references.

Daniel Trebbien