Value-Initialized Objects in C++11 and std::vector constructor

13
votes

In C++ there are few compelling reasons to use a C array over std::vector. One of those few compelling reasons, at least with C++03, was the fact that it is impossible to use a vector to allocate an uninitialized array of objects. The "fill" constructor for std::vector is:

vector(size_type count, const T& value = T())

Meaning that...

int* array = new array[1000000];

is likely to be much more efficient than:

std::vector<int> v(1000000);

...since the vector constructor will have to zero-initialize the array of integers. Thus, when working with a vector of PODs, there is no real equivalent to malloc; the best you can get is an equivalent to calloc.

C++11 seems to have changed this, with the concept of "value-initialization." In C++11, std::vector has a new constructor which takes a single size_type value, with no default argument. This "value-initializes" all elements in the vector. The C++11 standard distinguishes between "value-initialization" and "zero-initialization."

My understanding is that "value-initialization" is equivalent to calling the default constructor on T. If T is a POD type like int, then the default constructor simply creates an uninitialized integer. Thus, in C++11, explicit vector::vector(size_type count) is truly equivalent to malloc if T is a POD.

However, my understanding of this is based on the draft C++11 standard, rather than the final standard.

Question: Is my understanding correct here? Does explicit vector::vector(size_type count) provide an uninitialized array (similar to malloc) if T is a POD?

2
c++vectorc++11
Value initialization means zero initialization for built-in types. – juanchopanza
If you want uninitialized storage then use vector::reserve, as always. – Pubby
@Channel: C++03 also had value initialization as opposed to default initialization and zero initialization. The only relevant bit that changed was std::vector itself. – Mooing Duck
What's wrong with reserve() and then push_back()? – ipc
@MooingDuck: Sorry, aligned_storage. – ipc

2 Answers

22
votes

Question: Is my understanding correct here? Does explicit vector::vector(size_type count) provide an uninitialized array (similar to malloc) if T is a POD?

No. There is a difference here between C++03 and C++11, but that isn't it. The difference is that in C++03, vector<T>(N) would default construct a T, and then make N copies of it to populate the vector.

Whereas in C++11, vector<T>(N) will populate the vector by default constructing T N times. For POD types the effect is identical. Indeed, I would expect that for almost all types the effect is identical. However for something like a unique_ptr (a move-only type), the difference is critical. The C++03 semantics would never work since you can not make a copy of a move-only type.

So:

vector<unique_ptr<int>> v(10);

creates a vector of 10 null unique_ptrs (which are not copies of each other).

In the rare case that it makes a difference and you need the C++03 behavior that can easily be accomplished with:

vector<T> v(10, T());
8
votes

Note: the value-initialization happens in the allocator, so if you want a vector to do default initialization instead of value initialization for default constructed elements, you can do something like:

template<typename T>
struct DefaultInitAllocator {
    template<typename U>
    void construct(U* p)
    { ::new (static_cast<void*>(p)) U; }

    template<typename U, typename... Args>
    void construct(U* p, Args&&... args)
    { ::new (static_cast<void*>(p)) U(std::forward<Args>(args)...); }

    // ... rest of the allocator interface
};

// ...
typedef std::vector<int, DefaultInitAllocator<int>> DefaultInitVectorInt;