C++ Default Constructors

Well the bug I was getting bitten by at work is shown by the following code.

class c1
{
public:
    int a;
    int b;
};

class c2
{
public:
    int c;
    int d;
    c2(): c(3){};
};

class c3
{
public:
    int e;
    c1 f;
};

class c4
{
public:
    int g;
    c2 h;
};

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
    c1 v1;
    c2 v2;
    c3 v3;
    c4 v4;

    c1* pv1 = new c1();
    c2* pv2 = new c2();
    c3* pv3 = new c3();
    c4* pv4 = new c4();

    return 0;
}

With a break point on the return (in debug mode). Inspection shows the 8 variables have the follow values:

v1 {a=0xcccccccc b=0xcccccccc }
v2 {c=0x00000003 d=0xcccccccc }
v3 {e=0xcccccccc f={a=0xcccccccc b=0xcccccccc } }
v4 {g=0xcccccccc h={c=0x00000003 d=0xcccccccc } }
pv1 {a=0x00000000 b=0x00000000 }
pv2 {c=0x00000003 d=0xcdcdcdcd }
pv3 {e=0x00000000 f={a=0x00000000 b=0x00000000 } }
pv4 {g=<strong>0xcdcdcdcd</strong> h={c=0x00000003 d=0xcdcdcdcd } }

now v1-v4 are what I’d expect, pv1-pv3 are also are what I’d expect, but pv4 is not!

Because to break the default c3 members values just takes adding a constructor to c1, then c3 is broken.

Both Visual Studio 2003 and Visual Studio 2005 behave the same. It just seems very strange that the existence of a non-default constructor for one member field means that this object (class or struct) doesn’t get a default constructor.

Now I understand the best solution is to never have a struct or class without a constructor, but it just seems so fragile.

The makes extra work for me to upgrade our legacy code base from C malloc to C++ new, as not been able to rely of the default constructor to zero the ram, means I need to manually set all members to zero for all objects.

*GRRR*

Now I have a nephew

Well he arrived on the 18 of April, but I had no picture and he had no name. So it felt like empty news. Well I now have a picture!

Nephew No.1

The toy is called Lux, but the boy is taking his time!

Well done Aman and Angela