4 ms·

I prefer language constructs define that new storage is zero-initialized. It doesn't prevent all bugs (i.e. application logic bugs) but at least gives determini

by titzer 10mo ago

I prefer language constructs define that new storage is zero-initialized. It doesn't prevent all bugs (i.e. application logic bugs) but at least gives deterministic results. These days it's zero cost for local variables and near-zero cost for fields. This is the case in Virgil.

kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago
C & C++ run on systems where it may not be zero cost. If you need low latency startup it could be a liability to zero out large chunks of memory.
- ablob 10mo ago
  I think it's acceptable to leave an escape hatch for these situations instead of leaving it to easy to misunderstand nooks and crannies of the standard. You don't want to zero out the memory? Slap a "foo = uninitialized" in there to have that exact behavior and get the here be demons sign for free.
  - forrestthewoods 10mo ago
    Yeah this issue is super obvious and non-controversial. Uninitialized state is totally fine as an opt-in performance optimization. But having a well defined non-garbage default value should obviously be the default. Did C fuck that up 50 years ago? Yeah probably. They should have known better even then. But that’s ok. It’s a historical artifact. All languages are full of them. We learn and improve!
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - 1718627440 10mo ago
      I don't know, I expect all variables to be uninitialized until proven otherwise. It makes it easier for me to reason about code, especially convoluted code. But I also like C a lot and actually explicitly invoke UB quite often, so there is that.
      - forrestthewoods 10mo ago
        I like C and it's great. I wish more people wrote C instead of C++. But there's a reason that literally no modern language makes this choice. If uninitialization was opt-in you would still be free to "assume uninitialized until proven otherwise". But uninitialized memory is such a monumental catastrophic footgun that really is not a justifiable reason to make that default behavior. Which, again, is why no modern languages make that (terrible) design choice.
        1718627440 10mo ago
        I am talking about random convoluted code, I did neither wrote nor control. The UB does not only help the compiler, it also helps me the reverse engineer, since I also can assume that an access without a previous write is either a bug, or I misinterpreted the control flow.
        AlotOfReading 10mo ago
        You can assume whatever initialization you want when reading code, even if it's not in the standard. Is your concern that people would start writing code assuming zero-init behavior (as they already do)? That purpose would be better served by reclassifying uninitialized reads as erroneous behavior, which they are for C++26 onwards. What useful purpose is served by having them be UB specifically?
        torstenvl 10mo ago
        UB doesn't mean there will be nasal demons. It means there can be nasal demons, if the implementation says so. It means the language standard does not define a behavior. POSIX can still define the behavior. The implementation can still define the behavior. Plenty of things are UB just because major implementations do things wildly differently. For example: realloc(p, 0) Having initialization be UB means that implementations where it's zero cost can initialize them to zero, or implementations designed for safety-critical systems can initialize them to zero, or what have you, without the standard forcing all implementations to do so.
andrewaylett 10mo ago
That makes things worse if all-zero is not a valid value for the datatype. I'd much prefer a set-up that requires you to initialise explicitly. Rust, for example, has a `Default` trait that you can implement if there is a sensible default, which may well be all-zero. It also has a `MaybeUninit` holder which doesn't do any initialisation, but needs an `unsafe` to extract the value once you've made sure it's OK. But if you don't have a suitable default, and don't want/need to use `unsafe`, you have to supply all the values.

by titzer 10mo ago

kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago

C & C++ run on systems where it may not be zero cost. If you need low latency startup it could be a liability to zero out large chunks of memory.

ablob 10mo ago
I think it's acceptable to leave an escape hatch for these situations instead of leaving it to easy to misunderstand nooks and crannies of the standard. You don't want to zero out the memory? Slap a "foo = uninitialized" in there to have that exact behavior and get the here be demons sign for free.
- forrestthewoods 10mo ago
  Yeah this issue is super obvious and non-controversial. Uninitialized state is totally fine as an opt-in performance optimization. But having a well defined non-garbage default value should obviously be the default. Did C fuck that up 50 years ago? Yeah probably. They should have known better even then. But that’s ok. It’s a historical artifact. All languages are full of them. We learn and improve!
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - 1718627440 10mo ago
    I don't know, I expect all variables to be uninitialized until proven otherwise. It makes it easier for me to reason about code, especially convoluted code. But I also like C a lot and actually explicitly invoke UB quite often, so there is that.
    - forrestthewoods 10mo ago
      I like C and it's great. I wish more people wrote C instead of C++. But there's a reason that literally no modern language makes this choice. If uninitialization was opt-in you would still be free to "assume uninitialized until proven otherwise". But uninitialized memory is such a monumental catastrophic footgun that really is not a justifiable reason to make that default behavior. Which, again, is why no modern languages make that (terrible) design choice.
      - 1718627440 10mo ago
        I am talking about random convoluted code, I did neither wrote nor control. The UB does not only help the compiler, it also helps me the reverse engineer, since I also can assume that an access without a previous write is either a bug, or I misinterpreted the control flow.
        AlotOfReading 10mo ago
        You can assume whatever initialization you want when reading code, even if it's not in the standard. Is your concern that people would start writing code assuming zero-init behavior (as they already do)? That purpose would be better served by reclassifying uninitialized reads as erroneous behavior, which they are for C++26 onwards. What useful purpose is served by having them be UB specifically?
        torstenvl 10mo ago
        UB doesn't mean there will be nasal demons. It means there can be nasal demons, if the implementation says so. It means the language standard does not define a behavior. POSIX can still define the behavior. The implementation can still define the behavior. Plenty of things are UB just because major implementations do things wildly differently. For example: realloc(p, 0) Having initialization be UB means that implementations where it's zero cost can initialize them to zero, or implementations designed for safety-critical systems can initialize them to zero, or what have you, without the standard forcing all implementations to do so.

andrewaylett 10mo ago

That makes things worse if all-zero is not a valid value for the datatype. I'd much prefer a set-up that requires you to initialise explicitly. Rust, for example, has a `Default` trait that you can implement if there is a sensible default, which may well be all-zero. It also has a `MaybeUninit` holder which doesn't do any initialisation, but needs an `unsafe` to extract the value once you've made sure it's OK. But if you don't have a suitable default, and don't want/need to use `unsafe`, you have to supply all the values.