13
struct some_struct{
    int a;
};
some_struct n = {};

n.a will be 0 after this;

I know this braces form of initialization is inherited from C and is supported for compatibility with C programs, but this only compiles with C++, not with the C compiler. I'm using Visual C++ 2005.

In C this type of initialization

struct some_struct n = {0};

is correct and will zero-initialize all members of a structure.

Is the empty pair of braces form of initialization standard? I first saw this form of initialization in a WinAPI tutorial from msdn.

4 Answers 4

9

The empty braces form of initialization is standard in C++ (it's permitted explicitly by the grammar). See C Static Array Initialization - how verbose do I need to be? for more details if you're interested.

I assume that it was added to C++ because it might not be appropriate for a 0 value to be used for a default init value in all situations.

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

7

It is standard in C++, it isn't in C.

The syntax was introduced to C++, because some objects can't be initialized with 0, and there would be no generic way to perform value-initialization of arrays.

Comments

0

The {0} is C99 apparently.

Another way to initialize in a C89 and C++ compliant way is this "trick":

struct some_struct{ int a; };

static some_struct zstruct;

some_struct n = zstruct;

This uses the fact that static variables are pre-initialized with 0'ed memory, contrary to declarations on the stack or heap.

1 Comment

Initializing with {0} is valid for C89 too.
-1

I find the following link to be very informative on this particular issue

Comments

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.