There are certain situations in which uninitialized memory may be safely read using type "unsigned char*" [e.g. a buffer returned from malloc]. Code may read such memory without having to worry about the compiler throwing causality out the window, and there are times when it may be more efficient to have code be prepared for anything memory might contain than to ensure that uninitialized data won't be read (a commonplace example of this would be using memcpy on partially-initialized buffer rather than discretely copying all of the elements that contain meaningful data).

然而，即使在这种情况下，人们也应该始终假设，如果字节的任何组合特别烦人，那么读取它总是会产生字节的模式(如果某个模式在生产中是烦人的，但在开发中不是，那么这种模式直到代码进入生产中才会出现)。

Reading uninitialized memory might be useful as part of a random-generation strategy in an embedded system where one can be sure the memory has never been written with substantially-non-random content since the last time the system was powered on, and if the manufacturing process used for the memory causes its power-on state to vary in semi-random fashion. Code should work even if all devices always yield the same data, but in cases where e.g. a group of nodes each need to select arbitrary unique IDs as quickly as possible, having a "not very random" generator which gives half the nodes the same initial ID might be better than not having any initial source of randomness at all.

正如其他人所说，这将是快速的，但不是随机的。

大多数编译器对局部变量所做的是在堆栈上为它们抓取一些空间，而不是费心将其设置为任何东西(标准说它们不需要这样做，所以为什么要减慢生成的代码呢?)

在这种情况下，你将得到的值将取决于之前在堆栈上的内容——如果你在这个函数之前调用一个有100个局部char变量设置为'Q'的函数，然后在该函数返回后调用你的函数，那么你可能会发现你的“随机”值表现得就像你已经将memset()它们全部设置为'Q'。

重要的是，你的例子函数尝试使用这个，这些值不会改变每次你读取他们，他们将是相同的每一次。所以你会得到100颗星星都设置成相同的颜色和能见度。

而且，没有什么说编译器不应该初始化这些值——所以将来的编译器可能会这样做。

总的来说:坏主意，不要做。 (就像很多“聪明的”代码级优化一样……)

如果操作得当，使用未初始化的数据来获得随机性并不一定是件坏事。事实上，OpenSSL正是这样做的，以播种它的PRNG。

显然，这种用法并没有很好地记录下来，因为有人注意到Valgrind抱怨使用未初始化的数据，并“修复”了它，导致了PRNG中的一个错误。

所以你可以这样做，但你需要知道你在做什么，并确保任何阅读你的代码的人都理解这一点。

There are certain situations in which uninitialized memory may be safely read using type "unsigned char*" [e.g. a buffer returned from malloc]. Code may read such memory without having to worry about the compiler throwing causality out the window, and there are times when it may be more efficient to have code be prepared for anything memory might contain than to ensure that uninitialized data won't be read (a commonplace example of this would be using memcpy on partially-initialized buffer rather than discretely copying all of the elements that contain meaningful data).

然而，即使在这种情况下，人们也应该始终假设，如果字节的任何组合特别烦人，那么读取它总是会产生字节的模式(如果某个模式在生产中是烦人的，但在开发中不是，那么这种模式直到代码进入生产中才会出现)。

Reading uninitialized memory might be useful as part of a random-generation strategy in an embedded system where one can be sure the memory has never been written with substantially-non-random content since the last time the system was powered on, and if the manufacturing process used for the memory causes its power-on state to vary in semi-random fashion. Code should work even if all devices always yield the same data, but in cases where e.g. a group of nodes each need to select arbitrary unique IDs as quickly as possible, having a "not very random" generator which gives half the nodes the same initial ID might be better than not having any initial source of randomness at all.

把我们的逻辑依赖于语言未定义的行为不是一个好主意。除了在这篇文章中所提到/讨论的内容之外，我想提到的是，使用现代c++方法/风格，这样的程序可能无法编译。

这在我之前的文章中提到过，其中包含了自动功能的优势和相同的有用链接。

https://stackoverflow.com/a/26170069/2724703

因此，如果我们改变上面的代码并用auto替换实际的类型，程序甚至无法编译。

void updateEffect(){
    for(int i=0;i<1000;i++){
        auto r;
        auto g;
        auto b;
        star[i].setColor(r%255,g%255,b%255);
        auto isVisible;
        star[i].setVisible(isVisible);
    }
}

正如其他人所注意到的，这就是未定义行为(UB)。

实际上，它(可能)实际上(有点)管用。在x86[-64]架构上读取未初始化的寄存器确实会产生垃圾结果，而且可能不会做任何坏事(与例如Itanium相反，那里的寄存器可以被标记为无效，因此读取会传播NaN之类的错误)。

但这里存在两个主要问题:

It won't be particularly random. In this case, you're reading from the stack, so you'll get whatever was there previously. Which might be effectively random, completely structured, the password you entered ten minutes ago, or your grandmother's cookie recipe. It's Bad (capital 'B') practice to let things like this creep into your code. Technically, the compiler could insert reformat_hdd(); every time you read an undefined variable. It won't, but you shouldn't do it anyway. Don't do unsafe things. The fewer exceptions you make, the safer you are from accidental mistakes all the time.

UB更紧迫的问题是它使整个程序的行为没有定义。现代编译器可以使用它来省略大量的代码，甚至可以回溯到过去。玩UB就像维多利亚时代的工程师拆除一个活跃的核反应堆。有无数的事情会出错，而且您可能连一半的基本原则或实现的技术都不知道。这可能没什么，但你仍然不应该让它发生。看看其他漂亮的答案来了解细节。

还有，我会炒了你。