Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] Interest in the missing smart pointer (that can target the stack)
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-01-30 14:16:46


On 01/30/2016 11:31 AM, Noah wrote:
> On 1/29/2016 7:00 PM, Rob Stewart wrote:
>> Many times I don't want to initialize a variable because the branches
>> in the subsequent code select the value. Do your wrappers provide a
>> constructor that permits leaving the value uninitialized?
> So first let me say that I'm not proposing a total ban on primitive
> types. When you need the performance, and primitive types give you the
> performance, use them. But that should be small fraction of the world's
> total C++ code. What is antiquated, in my opinion, is that primitive
> types are the still the default. In terms of not wanting to initialize
> due to subsequent conditional assignment, I would say don't
> underestimate the compiler optimizer. When the optimizer can figure out
> that the default initialization is redundant, it will remove it for you,
> right?

  It's not just about optimization. Initializing
a variable with a bogus value is no more correct
than leaving it uninitialized, and also prevents
tools like valgrind from detecting any real problems.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at