220 11504 <03f935ac-2f51-46bb-b84b-d37c864e3b04@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: rouslankorneychuk@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Controversy and debate: Uninitialized variables by default is a bug Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 53 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <03f935ac-2f51-46bb-b84b-d37c864e3b04@isocpp.org> References: <60caa4ef-b32d-40fe-97b6-8918fbb2bd51@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2286_10788703.1403055565906" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1403055576 5969 80.91.229.3 (18 Jun 2014 01:39:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 01:39:36 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDEY5Y4RZYARBTW3QOOQKGQEF3FQ7CI@isocpp.org Wed Jun 18 03:39:30 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pb0-f72.google.com ([209.85.160.72]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Wx4qW-0005fn-TA for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:39:29 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-pb0-f72.google.com with SMTP id ma3sf729032pbc.3 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:39:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=ZWKSTnCV6UyOUGBE0cm5TfeqNZzujByphTkufKZ4YUU=; b=u9wBFpdOqQaOzouGXuZ32uwVv/3//K0v1bFe5OqUK4kz3pL2oYL106TJTZtv42rLVZ PKot3lpWdkmFCbhE10hS1cxMnh42F9NIkP+NCSnavA0jRp5Hv4gjUZ5NI0QxvoePZT9V 5hPJlFTBI5PREAXbJrGAx/R9gaTjgErXvMfe13pOerV+mWbsnm2wCwhtqSJUEXZFHPR+ 5svleuspg3Oak+UTdogoTZTRemTK7sAetRYG/fvj5mbE5205+PE6eXtcRvCLJQcpctxD bIDdftjlarqio8E2pd3hwOKDxfHiGXkitnF+gHqI7ykSgdtaiBMzJpQH8qfBU5X2xqDM WYgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=ZWKSTnCV6UyOUGBE0cm5TfeqNZzujByphTkufKZ4YUU=; b=Pd8Ntvw11hhVfNKmJPoGbCH6z6U9j9YpcuHgSXXNWXHNUyw7ng7ggraQkA7zqW4X4l iqi+r8bx81BuqVMgYnY6KlYlE3lHWFAD/2Ii6TXnwFfkIqnOtl8RoDd8ZQh4wb7L5UJI pNCf1dnyJmkmPAYJEKA7w92dibwWREKHll2KOh/beJQ5adWbG2D9rIyc3C0oZ17sK8mH FHbawQu5lP6Bxhsi8BFXuaxnqOjAurbF5PR80RkWHIowYgJg6j89zXJbBT7+C7gJ9SQ1 Lq4PRQfnvsLmY0Ai4UpfddnnH+yNMnQzKa8PsDnIBoq17vxXEflU1PdRgMlwf1sc3RaG JvPg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk9xn9eqgX/vvfEIkX7SPWj8bDMmrr2Fcb3TEPhMTUVUf5u4tLWx7OQ9cHkC+lLpb1oNlsp X-Received: by 10.66.164.167 with SMTP id yr7mr2391396pab.15.1403055567844; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:39:27 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.245.200 with SMTP id xq8ls1995610obc.81.gmail; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:39:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.108.165 with SMTP id hl5mr1169obb.27.1403055566618; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:39:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <60caa4ef-b32d-40fe-97b6-8918fbb2bd51@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: rouslankorneychuk@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:11504 Archived-At: ------=_Part_2286_10788703.1403055565906 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I don't see how default initialization will actually prevent any bugs. If a program reads a variable sooner than intended, or if the variable was not assigned a value when it was intended, your program still does the wrong thing regardless of whether the variable was initialized. The only difference is the program behaves more predictably and therefore easier to debug, but you can get the same predictability by compiling in debug mode. This might even make certain bugs harder to find because a program that would otherwise seemingly fail at random might not exhibit any symptoms until it is run under a very specific set of conditions. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. ------=_Part_2286_10788703.1403055565906 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't see how default initialization will actually preve= nt any bugs. If a program reads a variable sooner than intended, or if the = variable was not assigned a value when it was intended, your program still = does the wrong thing regardless of whether the variable was initialized. Th= e only difference is the program behaves more predictably and therefore eas= ier to debug, but you can get the same predictability by compiling in debug= mode. This might even make certain bugs harder to find because a program t= hat would otherwise seemingly fail at random might not exhibit any symptoms= until it is run under a very specific set of conditions.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
------=_Part_2286_10788703.1403055565906-- .