From -7227047678939692393 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e2cfdf64f67c7793 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!prodigy.com!atl-c02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull From: brangdon@cix.co.uk (Dave Harris) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Eliminating uninitialised variables Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:47:56 GMT Lines: 27 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1095875285 1527 158.152.254.254 (22 Sep 2004 17:48:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:48:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Received-SPF: none (mailbox7.ucsd.edu: domain of mod-submit@uni-berlin.de does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64-mulga_r1 (2004-01-11) on mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU X-Orig-X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de pAGhfrfhF2nf6mYAuEXSngoiWaX4JBYY7q6N7RspIzE3Pwgq4= X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64-mulga_r1 X-Reply-To: brangdon@cix.co.uk X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id i8MHluW8019689; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:47:56 +1000 (EST) X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu X-Spamscanner: mailbox7.ucsd.edu (v1.5 Aug 25 2004 09:28:35, -2.8/5.0 3.0.0-rc1) X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 27643 i8M7fVOY030728 mailbox7.ucsd.edu) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2833 invalid@bigfoot.com (Bob Hairgrove) wrote (abridged): > It would be fairly easy to require either malloc or operator new to > zero-initialize all storage it allocates. If operator new is written by the user, such a requirement would break backwards compatibility. > >What else am I missing? This is surely the kind of thing which future > >revisions of the C++ standard should be considering. > > I don't think it is worth doing. Zero-initialization doesn't really > make sense for object type members, anyway. Perhaps I used the wrong phrase. I meant the kind of initialisation static objects get. For built-in types, that's as if they were initialised from zero. Of course the final bit-pattern may not be zero, and of course user-defined types have their default constructors. -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]