Uninitialized vector pointer is not NULL [duplicate]

Question

During my work on bringing code from windows-only platform to the GNU compiler I noticed some strange behavior with an uninitialized pointer to a vector.

The corresponding code looks like this:

typedef vector<IPeer*> Network;
// [...]
Network* m_network;
// [...]
if (m_network == NULL)         // <-- this is the strange part
  m_network = new Network();

The marked line is making me sad. After declaring my vector it was NULL when I compiled it on my Windows machine. After moving the code to my Mac using GNU Compiler (I'm compiling on g++-5 with -std=c++11) my vector doesn't seems to be NULL after declaration anymore. The marked line is skipped.

Is this an c++ standard implementation issue or where does this strange behavior came from?

@BillLynch Thanks, this is a good in-depth explanation on my issue. — Marschal
– Marschal, Commented Dec 20, 2015 at 17:40

jpo38 · Accepted Answer · 2015-12-21 08:17:17Z

2

Uninitialized pointer has undetermined behaviour. Could be NULL or not, depending on the compiler (and, even for a specific compiler, Release and Debug binaries may have a different behaviour) and/or the memory state (see comments to this post).

It is recommended to always initialize them. Never expect an uninitialized variable to have a specific value (it's true for pointers, but also true for other types like int, bool that may take different default initialization values depending on the compiler/target).

It's actually hard to know what will be the value of an unitialized variable, and in many cases it is not deterministic.

edited Dec 21, 2015 at 8:17

answered Dec 20, 2015 at 17:26

jpo38

21.9k13 gold badges81 silver badges183 bronze badges

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

5 Comments

Marschal Over a year ago

Ok, so it's really depending on the compiler. Thanks!

Clifford Over a year ago

@Marschal : Contrary to what jpo32 has stated, it does not depend on the compiler at all; it simply depends on what happens to be in that memory location when the variable is instantiated which in turn depends on the previous content of the stack, and there fore previously executed code. A change in any code that runs prior to this (including changes in code generation due to compiler options) could result in a change in behaviour. Zero is a value that occurs a lot in computing, so often the value just happens to be null - that's the "luck" part.

Keith Thompson Over a year ago

@Clifford: It's perfectly legal for a compiler to generate code that initializes all uninitialized pointer to null -- or, more usefully, to some known invalid value like (void*)0xDEADBEEF. Also, uninitialized pointers with static storage duration (defined outside any function or with the static keyword) are initialized to null.

Clifford Over a year ago

@KeithThompson : OK, instead of saying that "it does not depend on the compiler at all", perhaps it would be better to caution that, it may be compiler dependent, or it may be entirely non-deterministic. In my observation of compilers (primarily in embedded systems), it is perhaps common for the entire stack to be initialised to some value, but implicit initialisation of individual local variables does not occur. Consequently, early in execution local variables have a deterministic value, but when that stack memory is reused, it has whatever was left there.

jpo38 Over a year ago

Thanks to both of you for the clarification, I edited my post.

Clifford · Accepted Answer · 2015-12-20 21:00:51Z

1

Local POD variables are initialised by implicitly. In your Windows implementation it just happened to be null by dumb luck and is dangerous code.

Use explicit initialisation:

Network* m_network = 0 ;

edited Dec 20, 2015 at 21:00

answered Dec 20, 2015 at 17:31

Clifford

94.3k14 gold badges93 silver badges176 bronze badges

2 Comments

Bill Lynch Over a year ago

Default initialization occurs, it's just that for POD objects, that means to leave the internal state as uninitialized. en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/default_initialization

Clifford Over a year ago

@BillLynch : I changed the wording. I meant "not initialised by default" rather than "default initialisation" which of course has specific meaning in the language definition.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Uninitialized vector pointer is not NULL [duplicate]

2 Answers 2

5 Comments

2 Comments

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

5 Comments

2 Comments

Linked

Related