Simple Question memset(vector<int>, 0, sizeof(vector<int>))

For some reason I'm having a brain cramp. I'm guessing this is really bad due to the functions within the vector class, but figured I might as well query "the mob".

Code:

#include <vector>

struct foo
{
  std::vector<int> fooVec;
};

foo var1;

memset(&var1, 0, sizeof(foo));

Bad, okay, or just safer to swap out the STL vector with an int*?

(Yes in my example zeroing the memory is pointless, but imagine it having like 15+ variables in addition to the vector that I wish to quickly initialize to Zero)

Originally Posted by HyperShadow

For some reason I'm having a brain cramp. I'm guessing this is really bad due to the functions within the vector class, but figured I might as well query "the mob".

Code:

#include <vector>

struct foo
{
  std::vector<int> fooVec;
};

foo var1;

memset(&var1, 0, sizeof(foo));

Bad, okay, or just safer to swap out the STL vector with an int*?

(Yes in my example zeroing the memory is pointless, but imagine it having like 15+ variables in addition to the vector that I wish to quickly initialize to Zero)

I'm not sure why you're doing that? If you didn't add anything to var1.fooVec, the size of the vector will be 0.

Originally Posted by HyperShadow

Code:

#include <vector>

struct foo
{
  std::vector<int> fooVec;
};

foo var1;

memset(&var1, 0, sizeof(foo));

BAD! - Do NOT do that!
If the vector is not already empty and you want to empty it, use either
foo.fooVec.clear();
or to release any reserved memory as well:
foo.fooVec.swap(std::vector<int>());

It's usually a very bad idea to zero out classes. If you multiple variables in a struct, then you can bunch them together and take their address to start from there. Just be sure to match the size now since you're excluding variables.
Or just make it a class/struct which has a constructor which inits them to 0.

I'm not sure why you're doing that? If you didn't add anything to var1.fooVec, the size of the vector will be 0.

Yep, isn't my intention to set all vector elements to Zero, but rather initialize an entire struct that contains an STL dynamic array without adding a function to my struct.

Ex:

Code:

struct foo{
  int a;
  float b;
  double c;
  vector<int> d;
};

foo var1;

ZeroMemory(&var1, sizeof(foo));

So think the following would be safe?

Code:

ZeroMemory(&var1, sizeof(foo) - sizeof(vector<int>));  //Assuming of course my vector is at the end of the struct.

I'm assuming the sizeof() a class never changes... and yep I should probably stop being lazy and just write a constructor... but I'm afraid I will want to down the road do a binary dump of my struct to a file and I'm looking for more "data storage" struct rather than a full class with Read() & Write() members, etc.

Code:

file.Write(&var1, sizeof(foo) - sizeof(vector<int>));
file.Write(&var1.d[0], var1.d.size() * sizeof(int));

Thanks for any input.

edit: Ah I remember why I was posting this question... quickly initializing embedded structs.

Example:

Code:

struct one{
  int a;
  int b;
  float c;
  double d;

  BYTE *data;

  two innerStruct;
};

struct two{
  int a;
  int b;
  int c;
  int d;

  vector<int> e;  <--- using STL vector to not have to worry about mem. management.
};

one outerStruct;
ZeroMemory(&one, sizeof(outerStruct));

Guess there is no easy way to do this without either.

a) Writing constructor for both structs.
b) Initializing of all veriables at each declaration.
c) Replacing all STL classes with simple pointers.
d) Possibly if careful enough ZeroMemory(&one, sizeof(outerStruct) - sizeof(vector<int>), which would really hinder growth.

Classes are complex objects and generally it's a bad idea to serialize them directly. Instead consider making a Write member function that serializes the object.
If you use MFC, you can also use CArchive.

Ah, but if you are using C++, then you can actually use a trick.
Consider this:

Code:

class b
{
	int n1, n2, n3, n4, 5;
	// Some other variables (NOT CLASSES OR STRUCTS)
};

class a: public b
{
	std::vector<int> myvec;
	// Put other classes or structs here. Member that you should not initialize to 0.
};

a mya;
ZeroMemory(&mya, sizeof(b));

However, remember that this kind of a hack. And if you use virtual functions, it gets trickier because the vtable will use 4 bytes at the beginning of the class.
I wouldn't rely on this too much. It's better to make constructors to initialize data to 0. It's the best, safest and most portable way.

The moment you do anything that isn't possible in C, memset and friends are off-limits.

but I'm afraid I will want to down the road do a binary dump of my struct to a file

That's another thing that's not possible the moment you have anything but primitives in the struct.