views:

171

answers:

1

An hour ago I posted an answer here which according to me was correct. However my answer was downvoted by Martin B. He said

You're just lucky and are getting zeros because the memory that i was placed in happened to be zero-initialized. This is not guaranteed by the standard.

However after reading Michael Burr's answer here and trying the following sample code

1)

#include <cassert>

struct B { ~B(); int m; };

int main()
{
   B * b= new B();
   assert ( b->m ==0);
}

I got a debug error on MSVC++2010.

I got a similar error when I tried the following code [My answer here] on MSVC++2010

2)

#include <cassert>
struct Struct {
    std::string String;
    int Int;
    bool k;
    // add add add
};

struct InStruct:Struct
{
   InStruct():Struct(){}
};

int main()
{
   InStruct i;
   assert( i.k == 0);
}

Neither (1) nor (2) gave any such error on gcc/Clang which made me think if MSVC++2010 does not support C++03. I am not sure.

According to Michael Burr's post [in C++03]

new B() - value-initializes B which zero-initializes all fields since its default ctor is compiler generated as opposed to user-defined.

The Standard says

To value-initialize an object of type Tmeans:

— 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 Thas no accessible default constructor);

.....

otherwise, the object is zero-initialized

From the first point if there is no user declared default constructor the compiler synthesized default constructor will be called which will zero initialize all the fields (according to last point).

So where am I wrong? Is my interpretation of value initialization correct?

+10  A: 

Visual Studio has known bugs in all current versions (2005, 2008, 2010) where it doesn't correctly implement value-initialization for non-POD types that don't have a user declared constructor.

By the language rules none of you asserts should fire but do exhibit the compiler issues. These are some of the bug reports, note that they are all closed or resolved as "Won't Fix".

http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/564268/c-value-initialization

http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/484295/vc-does-not-value-initialize-members-of-derived-classes-without-user-declared-constructor

http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/100744/value-initialization-in-new-expression

Charles Bailey
+1 and... wow, I carefully read into those feeback items and I'm shocked. In the first snippet by OP the problem will only occur if there's a user-provided destructor. If there's no user-provided destructor the variable is properly initialized. So this makes room for numerous code defects and all sane Visual C++ developers should better be aware of this problem.
sharptooth
This is a new learning for me. I also thought language doesn't provide any initialization guarantee. Just can't understand what prevents Microsoft from fixing such an important and basic bug.
Naveen