I have templated gray_code class which is meant to store some unsigned integer whose underlying bits are stored in Gray code order. Here it is:
template<typename UnsignedInt>
struct gray_code
{
static_assert(std::is_unsigned<UnsignedInt>::value,
"gray code only supports built-in unsigned integers");
// Variable containing the gray code
UnsignedInt value;
// Default constructor
constexpr gray_code()
= default;
// Construction from UnsignedInt
constexpr explicit gray_code(UnsignedInt value):
value( (value >> 1) ^ value )
{}
// Other methods...
};
In some generic algorithm, I wrote something like this:
template<typename UnsignedInt>
void foo( /* ... */ )
{
gray_code<UnsignedInt> bar{};
// Other stuff...
}
In this piece of code, I expected bar to be zero-intialized and therefore bar.value to be zero-initialized. However, after having struggled with unexpected bugs, it appears that bar.value is initialized with garbage (4606858 to be exact) instead of 0u. That surprised me, so I went to cppreference.com to see what the line above was exactly supposed to do...
From what I can read, the form T object{}; corresponds to value initialization. I found this quote interesting:
In all cases, if the empty pair of braces {} is used and T is an aggregate type, aggregate-initialization is performed instead of value-initialization.
However, gray_code has a user-provided constructor. Therefore it is not an aggregate thus aggregate initialization is not performed. gray_code has no constructor taking an std::initializer_list so list initialization is not performed either. The value-initialized of gray_code should then follow the usual C++14 rules of value initialization:
1) If T is a class type with no default constructor or with a user-provided default constructor or with a deleted default constructor, the object is default-initialized.
2) If T is a class type without a user-provided or deleted default constructor (that is, it may be a class with a defaulted default constructor or with an implicitly-defined one) then the object is zero-initialized and then it is default-initialized if it has a non-trivial default constructor.
3) If T is an array type, each element of the array is value-initialized.
4) Otherwise, the object is zero-initialized.
If I read correctly, gray_code has an explicitly defaulted (not user-provided) default constructor, therefore 1) does not apply. It has a defaulted default constructor, so 2) applies: gray_code is zero-initialized. The defaulted default constructor seems to meet all the requirements of a trivial default constructor, so default initialization should not happen. Let's have a look then at how gray_code is zero-initialized:
If T is a scalar type, the object's initial value is the integral constant zero implicitly converted to T.
If T is an non-union class type, all base classes and non-static data members are zero-initialized, and all padding is initialized to zero bits. The constructors, if any, are ignored.
If T is a union type, the first non-static named data member is zero-initialized and all padding is initialized to zero bits.
If T is array type, each element is zero-initialized
If T is reference type, nothing is done.
gray_code is a non-union class type. Therefore, all of its non-static data members should be initialized which means that value is zero-initialized. value satisfies std::is_unsigned and is therefore a scalar type, which means that it should be initialized with "the integral constant zero implicitly converted to T".
So, if I read correctly all of that, in the function foo above, bar.value should always be initialized with 0 and it should never be initialized with garbage, am I right?
Note: the compiler I compiled my code with is MinGW_w4 GCC 4.9.1 with (POSIX threads and dwarf exceptions) in case that helps. While I sometimes get garbage on my computer, I never managed to get anything else than zero with online compilers.
Update: It seems to be a GCC bug that the error is mine and not that of my compiler. Actually, when writing this question, I assumed for the sake of simplicity that
class foo {
foo() = default;
};
and
class foo {
foo();
};
foo::foo() = default;
were equivalent. They are not. Here is the quote from the C++14 standard, section [dcl.fct.def.default]:
A function is user-provided if it is user-declared and not explicitly defaulted or deleted on its first declaration.
In other words, when I got garbage values, my defaulted default constructor was indeed user-provided since it was not explicitly efaulted on its first declaration. Therefore, what happened was not zero initialization but default initialization. Thanks @Columbo again for pointing out the real problem.
UnsignedInt value{0}instead of reading pages and pages ... I know you know. ;-) – Prygray_code<UnsignedInt> bar{};is list-initialization. – MinterT() {}behaves differently toT() = default;– Minter= default, added in C++11, has some strange rules. The code doing value-initialization in C++03 still performs value-initialization in C++11. – Christoper= defaultstrange rules is only:A function is user-provided if it is user-declared and not explicitly defaulted or deleted on its first declaration.– Inclose= defaultto behave differently depending on whether it is or not in the class declaration. – Christoper