From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id B7F4B385E00A; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:05:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B7F4B385E00A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700751920;
	bh=SoGDueELkuYc3i8nzAAS1aVAh2E4aSBGxCkOC6hUaEg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xgxIrbERIeEQKAkz1UisvU96e/7/5nTLUtukMt8M6eAyfinNLWOiIKRkAHoLBggGr
	 NAMYuSdL8U3Ic9x3OsgkoKZYNxyFOOZThylVCmP4A/hhEvfuHnedjXenz7YNNxuL4F
	 1n+OfWoSBLUe1a2XMywqd3oTkycW3+g6xldlH9y4=
From: "paisanafc at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/112666] Missed optimization: Value initialization
 zero-initializes members with user-defined constructor
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:05:19 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.4.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: paisanafc at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-112666-4-mekzsxhykO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112666-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112666-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112666

--- Comment #2 from Francisco Paisana <paisanafc at gmail dot com> ---
Jonathan Wakely, thanks a lot for your clarification. I finally got it.=20

In summary, we established that:
1. if a type T (in my case C) has no user-defined ctor, it will be
zero-initialized.
2. and for that T, "each non-static data member ... is zero-initialized."

For others that might fall into the same trap as me, the important detail i=
n 2
is that members are "zero-initialized" and not "value-initialized". If
non-static data members were value-initialized (not the case!), then my
original comment would have been true based on the clause (see
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/zero_initialization):

"Zero-initialization is performed in the following situations:
...
2) As part of value-initialization sequence [...] for members of
value-initialized class types that have no constructors."

I wonder if there is a way to forbid the members of a class type from ever
being zero-initialized in C++.

In any case, we can mark this issue as solved.=