In this article, we talk about Auto Non-Static Data Member Initializers in C++. All code snippet can be tested on Compiler Explorer thanks to Matt Godbolt and the CE team. The clang patch to enable this feature was authored by Faisal Vali 5 years ago, but I have crudely rebased it on top of clang trunk (~ 7.0).

In fact, the main motivation for this article is to put this feature in the hand of people to prove that it works and that it would be a great addition to the standard.

Having the capacity to test proposed features on Compiler Explorer is a great way to better understand a feature and its corner case. So I encourage you to play with the code snippets.

But first thing first.

What are Auto Non Static Data Member Initializers ( NSDMI ) ?

Data Member Initializers

In C++, you can introduce a default value for a member variable, that will be used to initiate a variable if you don’t initialize explicitly, either in a constructor member initializer list or by using an aggregate initialization.

int main () { struct S { int a = 42 ; }; S s; return s.a; }

This is called Data Member Initializers. The initializer is only evaluated if the member isn’t initialized explicitly. For example, in the following example, main returns 0;

int ret = 0 ; int main () { struct { int x = ++ret; } x = { 0 }; return ret; }

Static Data Member Initializers

In a similar fashion, static members can have an initializer, although, the rules are a bit different. First, a static data member initializer is always evaluated and supersedes out-of-class definition.

The following code fails because we try to define s::foo twice:

struct s { static const int foo = 42 ; }; int s::foo = 42 ;

Only static data members that represent a literal value can have a data member initializer. This is because otherwise, that static member needs to have linkage (be addressable at runtime, if you will) and as such only be defined in the whole program. Otherwise, you would run into ODR violations. gasp.

Auto Static Data Member Initializers

Static data members that have a data member initializer can be declared with auto.

struct s { static const auto foo = 42 ; };

foo

int

auto

Auto Non-Static Data Member Initializers

In this case,is deduced to be of typeand it works exactly the same as any declaration of a variable with: The right-hand side expression is evaluated and its type determines the type of the variable, in this case, the static data member.

With all those pieces, we can now see what an NSDMI is, simply a class or struct data member with an initializer, whose type is deduced.

struct s { auto foo = 42 ; };

However, this won’t compile: the standard forbids it.

The case for auto NSDM

So, Auto Non-Static Data Member Initializers aren’t actually a thing neither in C++17 or the upcoming C++20. It was last proposed in 2008, and haven’t generated a lot of discussions since - This blog post attempts to address that!

So, should the above code be valid? I definitively think so. The argument really is… why not?

Always Auto? Not quite.

That may sound like a poor argument, but data members are the only entity that can not be declared with auto . auto can declare any kind of variables in all kind of contexts, but this one. And that kind of exception defies expectations. Users might try to use them naturally, wonder why they don’t work and then you would have to come up with a good explanation.

Expressiveness of auto

The reason why you may want to use auto NSDMI is the same you would use auto in any other context. I think the strongest showcase at the moment would type deduction

#include <vector> struct s { auto v1 = std::vector{ 3 , 1 , 4 , 1 , 5 }; std::vector< int > v2 = std::vector{ 3 , 1 , 4 , 1 , 5 }; };

make_unique and make_shared would also make good candidates, along with all make_ functions

#include <memory> struct s { auto ptr = std::make_shared<Foo>(); std::shared_ptr<Foo> ptr2 = std::make_shared<Foo>(); };

Literals can also make good candidates, however, they require a using namespace which you should avoid doing in headers. Which is more a problem with literals and the inability to do using namespace at class-scope.

#include <chrono> using namespace std::chrono_literals; struct doomsday_clock { auto to_midnight = 2 min; };

It already works

As noted in N2713 - Allow auto for non-static data members - 2008, almost anything that can be expressed by auto can be expressed with decltype

struct s { decltype ( 42 ) foo = 42 ; };

In fact, we can devise a macro ( please, don’t try this at home )

#define AUTO(var, expr) decltype(expr) var = (expr) struct s { AUTO(foo, 42 ); };

And, if it works with a less convenient syntax, why not make people life easier?

Lambda data members

There is one thing that cannot be achieved with decltype however: lambda as data member. Indeed, each lambda expression as a unique type so decltype([]{}) foo = []{}; can’t work, and because of that lambda as data member cannot be achieved, unless of course by resorting to some kind of type erasure, for example std::function .

I suppose there isn’t much value in using lambdas instead of member functions. Except that, lambdas having capture group, you could store variables specific to a single callable within the capture group, giving you less data member to care about.

For example, the following example captures a global variable (again, don’t try this at home!) at construction time.

/* prints 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 */ #include <vector> #include <iostream> #include <range/v3/view/reverse.hpp> int counter = 0 ; struct object { auto id = [counter = ++counter] { return counter;}; }; int main () { std::vector<object> v( 10 ); for ( auto & obj : v | ranges::view::reverse) { std::cout << obj.id() << ' ' ; } }

So… why are auto NSDMI not in the standard?

They apparently almost got in in 2008, there were some concerns so they were removed and a bit forgotten a bit, despite N2713 proposing to add them.

When parsing a class, the compiler first parses the declarations (functions signatures, variables definitions, nested classes, etc), then parse the inline definitions, method default parameters, and data member initializers.

That lets you initialize a member with an expression depending on a member not yet declared.

struct s { int a = b(); int b (); };

However, if you introduce auto members, things aren’t that simple. Take the following valid code

struct s { auto a = b(); int b () { return 42 ; }; } foo;

Here, what happens is

The compiler creates a member a of auto type, at this stage the variable a has a name, but no actual, usable type. The compiler creates a function b of type int; The compiler parses the initializer of a and a becomes an int , however, b() is not called. The compiler parses the definition of b The compiler construct foo and calls b() to initialize a

In some cases, the class is not yet complete when the compiler deduces a data member type, leading to an ill-formed program:

struct s { auto a = sizeof (s); auto b = 0 ; };

Here:

The compiler creates a member a of auto type, at this stage the variable a has a name, but no actual, usable type. The compiler creates a member b of auto type The compiler parses the initializer of a in order to determine its type At this stage, neither the size of a or b is known, the class is “incomplete” and sizeof expression is ill-formed: error: invalid application of 'sizeof' to an incomplete type 's' .

So there are certain things you can not do within auto-nsdmi: calling sizeof referring to *this (even in decltype), constructing an instance of the class, etc. All of this makes sense and you would run with the same issue with decltype . Or simply by doing

struct s { s nope; };

Another gotcha is that an auto data member cannot depend on another data member declared after:

struct s { auto a = b; auto b = 0 ; }; int main () { return s{}.a; }

Here:

The compiler creates a member a of auto type, at this stage the variable a has a name, but no actual, usable type. The compiler creates a member b of auto type, at this stage the variable b has a name, but no actual, usable type. The compiler parses the initializer of a in order to determine its type. the type of b is unknown and therefore the program is ill-formed.

Which again, should feel natural to most c++ developers. Alas, these quirks were enough for the feature never to make in the working draft.

Binary compatibility

Changing struct S { auto x = 0; }; to struct S { auto x = 0.0 ; }; breaks abi compatibility. While this may indeed be a bit confusing, functions with auto return type have the same issue. In general exposing binary-stable interfaces in C++ is a complicated exercise that should be avoided. This proposed feature does not significantly exacerbate the issue. If for some reason you care about binary compatibility, avoid using auto in your exported interfaces. And maybe avoid using data member initializers altogether.

Is a paper coming?

It’s not something I plan to do, I just wanted to start a discussion again! The original paper is too old to be still relevant.

The author noted at the time:

Recently, it was pointed out on comp.lang.c++.moderated that one can get the same effect anyway, just with uglier code, using decltype. Because of that, the author believes that the objection to auto has softened.

The wording of the standard changed significantly since then. Enough that it took me a while to find what exactly prevents auto NSDMI in today’s standard, so let’s look at some wording.

dcl.spec.auto The type of a variable declared using auto or decltype(auto) is deduced from its initializer. This use is allowed in an initializing declaration ([dcl.init]) of a variable. auto or decltype(auto) shall appear as one of the decl-specifiers in the decl-specifier-seq and the decl-specifier-seq shall be followed by one or more declarators, each of which shall be followed by a non-empty initializer.

That first paragraph makes auto foo = ... valid, and was easy to find. However, it says nothing about excluding data members ( nor explicitly allowing static data members).

basic A variable is introduced by the declaration of a reference other than a non-static data member or of an object. The variable’s name, if any, denotes the reference or object.

I was stuck for quite some time before I thought of checking up the normative definition of variable , which single-out non-static data members. Neat.

So, adding auto NSDMI to the standard would only requiere to add:

dcl.spec.auto The type of a variable or data-member declared using auto or decltype(auto) is deduced from its initializer. This use is allowed in an initializing declaration ([dcl.init]) of a variable.

But the committee may also want to specify exactly the way auto-NSDMI and late class parsing interact, which is easy enough to explain in a blog post but much harder to write wording for.

Acknowledgments

Matt Godbolt and the compiler explorer team for helping my put this experimental branch on compiler explorer.

Faisal Vali who authored the initial clang support.

Alexandr Timofeev who motivated me to write this article.

References