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.

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.

还没有提到，但是调用未定义行为的代码路径可以做编译器想做的任何事情，例如:

void updateEffect(){}

这肯定比你正确的循环快，因为有UB，是完全符合的。

您的特定代码示例可能无法实现您所期望的功能。虽然从技术上讲，循环的每次迭代都为r、g和b值重新创建局部变量，但实际上它们在堆栈上是完全相同的内存空间。因此，它不会在每次迭代中重新随机化，你最终将为1000种颜色中的每一种分配相同的3个值，而不管r、g和b最初是多么随机。

事实上，如果它确实有效，我会非常好奇是什么让它重新随机化。我唯一能想到的就是在这个堆栈上有一个交错的中断，这是不太可能的。也许内部优化将它们作为寄存器变量，而不是真正的内存位置，在循环中寄存器被重用，这也会奏效，特别是如果设置可见性函数特别需要寄存器的话。不过，这远不是随机的。

我做了一个非常简单的测试，它根本不是随机的。

#include <stdio.h>

int main() {

    int a;
    printf("%d\n", a);
    return 0;
}

每次我运行程序，它都输出相同的数字(在我的例子中是32767)——没有比这更随机的了。这大概是运行时库中留在堆栈上的启动代码。由于每次程序运行时都使用相同的启动代码，并且在两次运行之间程序中没有其他变化，因此结果是完全一致的。

未定义的行为是未定义的。这并不意味着你得到了一个未定义的值，这意味着程序可以做任何事情，并且仍然满足语言规范。

一个好的优化编译器应该

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

并编译成noop。这当然比任何其他选择都要快。它的缺点是什么都做不了，但这就是未定义行为的缺点。