CODEWITHSUNDEEP
carraysstringinitializationc99
William Breathitt Gray
William Breathitt Gray

Reputation: 11996

Value of elements of a character array initialized as an empty string

Suppose the following initialization:

char mystr[4] = "";

Does the C99 standard guarantee that a character array initialized to an empty string will initialize all elements in the character array to null bytes? For example, does the standard guarantee that mystr[2] == '\0'?

How about these initializations:

char myfoo[4] = { '\0' };
char mybar[4] = { 0 };

While I'm pretty certain that explicitly setting the first element of a character array will guarantee the implicit initialization of the rest of the elements to 0, I suspect a string literal initialization results in a copy to the array -- thus meaning a single \0 is copied to the array while the remaining elements are left uninitialized.

Upvotes: 8

Views: 8190

Answers (3)

Taylor Brandstetter
Taylor Brandstetter

Reputation: 3623

Section 6.7.8, paragraph 21:

If there are fewer initializers in a brace-enclosed list than there are elements or members of an aggregate, or fewer characters in a string literal used to initialize an array of known size than there are elements in the array, the remainder of the aggregate shall be initialized implicitly the same as objects that have static storage duration.

And how are objects with static storage duration initialized?

Section 6.7.8, paragraph 10:

If an object that has automatic storage duration is not initialized explicitly, its value is indeterminate. If an object that has static storage duration is not initialized explicitly, then:

  • if it has pointer type, it is initialized to a null pointer;
  • if it has arithmetic type, it is initialized to (positive or unsigned) zero;
  • if it is an aggregate, every member is initialized (recursively) according to these rules;
  • if it is a union, the first named member is initialized (recursively) according to these rules.

char is an arithmetic type, so it's initialized to 0. Huzzah, you can rest easy.

Upvotes: 12

AnT stands with Russia
AnT stands with Russia

Reputation: 320719

C language follows "all or nothing" approach to all aggregate initializations. It means that any attempt to supply an explicit initializer for any part of the aggregate (regardless of how small that part is) immediately guarantees that the entire aggregate will be initialized. The parts without an explicit initializer will be zero-initialized.

In your example the entire array is guaranteed to be initialized with zeros. In case of struct initialization, all fields that are not initialized explicitly get zero values.

One consequence of that principle is that in C language the = { 0 } initializer serves as an idiomatic universal zero initializer. Since the language allows = { value } syntax in scalar object initializers as well, one can use = { 0 } to initialize any object to all-zero state

#define UNIVERSAL_ZERO { 0 }

double d = UNIVERSAL_ZERO;
char s[100] = UNIVERSAL_ZERO;
struct { int x, y, z; } xyz = UNIVERSAL_ZERO;
int *p = UNIVERSAL_ZERO;

Upvotes: 6

user529758
user529758

Reputation:

Yes, excess elements of an array are always zero-initialized, and arrays of char initialized using a string literal are no exception either.

From the C99 Standard, section 6.7.8.21 (page 139 of this document):

21 If there are fewer initializers in a brace-enclosed list than there are elements or members of an aggregate, or fewer characters in a string literal used to initialize an array of known size than there are elements in the array, the remainder of the aggregate shall be initialized implicitly the same as objects that have static storage duration.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions