This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 Core Issues List revision 115e. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official list.
2024-11-11
[Moved to DR at the April, 2013 meeting.]
Does the Standard require that an uninitialized auto variable have a stable (albeit indeterminate) value? That is, does the Standard require that the following function return true?
bool f() {
unsigned char i; // not initialized
unsigned char j = i;
unsigned char k = i;
return j == k; // true iff "i" is stable
}
6.8.2 [basic.fundamental] paragraph 1
requires that uninitialized unsigned char variables have a
valid value, so the initializations of j and k are
well-formed and required not to trap. The question here is whether
the value of i is allowed to change between those
initializations.
Mike Miller: 6.9.1 [intro.execution] paragraph 10 says,
An instance of each object with automatic storage duration (6.7.5.4 [basic.stc.auto] ) is associated with each entry into its block. Such an object exists and retains its last-stored value during the execution of the block and while the block is suspended...I think that the most reasonable way to read this is that the only thing that is allowed to change the value of an automatic (non-volatile?) value is a "store" operation in the abstract machine. There are no "store" operations to i between the initializations of j and k, so it must retain its original (indeterminate but valid) value, and the result of the program is well-defined.
The quibble, of course, is whether the wording "last-stored value" should be applied to a "never-stored" value. I think so, but others might differ.
Tom Plum: 9.2.9.2 [dcl.type.cv] paragraph 8 says,
[Note: volatile is a hint to the implementation to avoid aggressive optimization involving the object because the value of the object might be changed by means undetectable by an implementation. See 6.9.1 [intro.execution] for detailed semantics. In general, the semantics of volatile are intended to be the same in C++ as they are in C. ]>From this I would infer that non-volatile means "shall not be changed by means undetectable by an implementation"; that the compiler is entitled to safely cache accesses to non-volatile objects if it can prove that no "detectable" means can modify them; and that therefore i shall maintain the same value during the example above.
Nathan Myers: This also has practical code-generation consequences. If the uninitialized auto variable lives in a register, and its value is really unspecified, then until it is initialized that register can be used as a temporary. Each time it's "looked at" the variable has the value that last washed up in that register. After it's initialized it's "live" and cannot be used as a temporary any more, and your register pressure goes up a notch. Fixing the uninit'd value would make it "live" the first time it is (or might be) looked at, instead.
Mike Ball: I agree with this. I also believe that it was certainly never my intent that an uninitialized variable be stable, and I would have strongly argued against such a provision. Nathan has well stated the case. And I am quite certain that it would be disastrous for optimizers. To ensure it, the frontend would have to generate an initializer, because optimizers track not only the lifetimes of variables, but the lifetimes of values assigned to those variables. This would put C++ at a significant performance disadvantage compared to other languages. Not even Java went this route. Guaranteeing defined behavior for a very special case of a generally undefined operation seems unnecessary.
Proposed resolution (February, 2012):
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 616.