Search

4.1 — Introduction to fundamental data types

Bits, bytes, and memory addressing

In lesson 1.3 -- Introduction to variables, we talked about the fact that variables are names for a piece of memory that can be used to store information. To recap briefly, computers have random access memory (RAM) that is available for programs to use. When a variable is defined, a piece of that memory is set aside for that variable.

The smallest unit of memory is a binary digit (also called a bit), which can hold a value of 0 or 1. You can think of a bit as being like a traditional light switch -- either the light is off (0), or it is on (1). There is no in-between. If you were to look at a random segment of memory, all you would see is …011010100101010… or some combination thereof.

Memory is organized into sequential units called memory addresses (or addresses for short). Similar to how a street address can be used to find a given house on a street, the memory address allows us to find and access the contents of memory at a particular location.

Perhaps surprisingly, in modern computer architectures, each bit does not get its own unique memory address. This is because the number of memory addresses are limited, and the need to access data bit-by-bit is rare. Instead, each memory address holds 1 byte of data. A byte is a group of bits that are operated on as a unit. The modern standard is that a byte is comprised of 8 sequential bits.

Key insight

In C++, we typically work with “byte-sized” chunks of data.

The following picture shows some sequential memory addresses, along with the corresponding byte of data:

Memory Addressing

As an aside...

Some older or non-standard machines may have bytes of a different size (from 1 to 48 bits) -- however, we generally need not worry about these, as the modern de-facto standard is that a byte is 8 bits. For these tutorials, we’ll assume a byte is 8 bits.

Data types

Because all data on a computer is just a sequence of bits, we use a data type (often called a “type” for short) to tell the compiler how to interpret the contents of memory in some meaningful way. You have already seen one example of a data type: the integer. When we declare a variable as an integer, we are telling the compiler “the piece of memory that this variable uses is going to be interpreted as an integer value”.

When you give an object a value, the compiler and CPU take care of encoding your value into the appropriate sequence of bits for that data type, which are then stored in memory (remember: memory can only store bits). For example, if you assign an integer object the value 65, that value is converted to the sequence of bits 0100 0001 and stored in the memory assigned to the object.

Conversely, when the object is evaluated to produce a value, that sequence of bits is reconstituted back into the original value. Meaning that 0100 0001 is converted back into the value 65.

Fortunately, the compiler and CPU do all the hard work here, so you generally don’t need to worry about how values gets converted into bit sequences and back.

All you need to do is pick a data type for your object that best matches your desired use.

Fundamental data types

C++ comes with built-in support for many different data types. These are called fundamental data types, but are often informally called basic types, primitive types, or built-in types.

Here is a list of the fundamental data types, some of which you have already seen:

Types Category Meaning Example
float
double
long double
Floating Point a number with a fractional part 3.14159
bool Integral (Boolean) true or false true
char
wchar_t
char8_t (C++20)
char16_t (C++11)
char32_t (C++11)
Integral (Character) a single character of text ‘c’
short
int
long
long long (C++11)
Integral (Integer) positive and negative whole numbers, including 0 64
std::nullptr_t (C++11) Null Pointer a null pointer nullptr
void Void no type n/a

This chapter is dedicated to exploring these fundamental data types in detail (except std::nullptr_t, which we’ll discuss when we talk about pointers). C++ also supports a number of other more complex types, called compound types. We’ll explore compound types in a future chapter.

Author's note

The terms “integer” and “integral” are similar, but have different meanings. Integers are a specific data type that hold positive and negative whole numbers, including 0. The term “integral types” (which means “like an integer”) includes all of the boolean, characters, and integer types (and thus is a bit broader in definition). Integral types are named so because they are stored in memory as integers, even though they behave slightly differently.

The _t suffix

Many of the types defined in newer versions of C++ (e.g. std::nullptr_t) use a _t suffix. This suffix means “type”, and it’s a common nomenclature applied to modern types.

If you see something with a _t suffix, it’s probably a type. But many types don’t have a _t suffix, so this isn’t consistently applied.


4.2 -- Void
Index
3.x -- Chapter 3 summary and quiz

208 comments to 4.1 — Introduction to fundamental data types

  • ethano

    In the "dangerous way of defining a variable" part, you write

    since it says "correct", people may think you have to have the = next to the variable like this:

    which is fine but ist exactly how people normally write it. Not a bad mistake just slightly weird and may teach someone the non-standard way to write it

  • As a former Pascal coder, I am quite often putting all declarations on the top of a function regardless if the language I use requires me to, as in Pascal you need to declare variables (even locals) outside of the scope unlike C/C++ you can only declare them at the top for code:

    Begin and End are the Pascal equivalents to { and } and the last statement before end does not require ; in Pascal, although it *is* allowed). As you can see the Var statement comes before 'Begin'. (Oh yeah, Pascal is case insensitive so BEGIN or Begin or BeGiN are all the same in Pascal).
    In C that would look like this.

    Due to this I am always tempted to place variable declarations at the top, and that gave me one advantage. Organization. I often had a lot of bugs in my Go programs due to the Go's very short declare and define syntax, make the code above look like this:

    I forgot all the time, I already declared 'A' before, so the compiler went haywire all the time.

    It's not that I am fully against declaring to the closest point before you need it, as I did it it some of my C projects too (giving me issues when I tried to compile my 'Heks' project in MS-DOS, haha), but the advantage of declaring all variables at the top of the code is that you can see in one go what has been declared and what has not, which can particularly in long and complex functions be a blessing. In my time as a Pascal coder I never had issues with duplicate declarations, and forgotten declarations were also rare. This changed when I went to languages less restrictive than Pascal.

    Now I do see it as an advantage too to only declare variables as close to the first time needed as possible, but when you want to prevent chaos, putting all declarations at the top can be an option too, I think.
    When my functions have multiple tasks, I mostly declare required locals at the start of that task. Like this function in Lua to use the Pythagorean Theorism:

    (Now, Lua does support declare and define in one line like C/C++ do, but I deliberately avoided that to show what I mean).
    Now I divided this in 3 tasks and used the declaration (as far as you can speak of that in Lua, but locals must be declared as such as undeclared vars are always global in Lua). In declare when you need it first the upper task would look like this:

    Somehow that does not appeal me, but maybe that's also the Aspie in me :P

    • Alex

      It's a matter of what you're used to. Having done it both ways myself, I find the "define it when you need it" superior, because I find the contextualization provided by where the variable is defined to be of more use than the organization of having all my variables in one place.

      • Richard

        Alex and Jeroen, both of you have valid points.  A variable declared just before its first use makes easier editing at later date.  But declaring a variable at the beginning of its block emphasizes the variable's scope.  My experience finds that the advantages of the latter out way the former.

        Modularity is a key aspect of programming style, and statement blocks (historically ALGOL, Pascal, C/C++) are potentially as useful as refactoring using functions.  Perhaps both styles are worth mentioning in this regard?  In either case, thanks Alex for your excellent tutorial.

  • Asgar

    I remember, in old C++, I was able to initialize an array like this:

    But, that was before C++11, and therefore uniform initialization was not available. Since neither direct- nor copy initialization would be able to initialize a list of values, then what form of initialization should we say this example is?

    According to Bjarne Stroustrup in his book, these four ways of initializing a variable current exist, of which the first one was introduced in C++11:

  • Alireza

    Hi there,
    I've noticed that a value initialized with direct initialized takes the value 1, and a value initialized with uniform initialized takes the value 0.

    • Hi!

      It doesn't. Line 1 in your code is C++'s most vexing parse. @number is not an int. It's the prototype of a function that returns an int.
      @std::cout treats functions as booleans and every function evaluates to true, so it prints 1 (Or "true" if you set @std::boolalpha).
      Uniform initialization solves this problem. Use uniform initialization.

      • Alireza

        Thank you for answering,
        So 'number' is a function declaration that is written in main(), right ?
        This is why it returns 1.
        Thank you so much and good luck ;D

        • Right.
          But the function @number is never called. To call it you'd have to write

          the latter is the address of the function @number.
          @std::cout doesn't know how to print function pointers, so it converts it to a bool.

          @Alex might be able to explain why @number can be converted at all, as the function it declares doesn't exist and any use should cause a linker error, but conversion to bool doesn't. I am unable to find an explanation for this, I'm uncertain if this behavior is well-defined.

          • Alireza

            Thanks bro. you helped me a lot.
            Good luck

          • Alex

            I'm not sure why gcc behaves this way. The program doesn't compile on Visual Studio, but it does on Code::Blocks (which uses gcc).

            The behavior of implicitly converting a function pointer to a bool is well-defined (though Visual Studio has a compiler extension that will convert it to void* instead). I suspect gcc converting a function prototype to a bool is a bug.

  • in built in data types table , int , long , long should be a non fractional number or it is a whole number?

  • Nguyen

    Hi,

    Please refer to the same picture in this lesson for my example.  The picture shows some sequential memory addresses, along with the corresponding byte of data.

    Example:

    Assuming that piece of memory is set aside for the variable x.  

    1.  Which memory address of variable x will be printed out if I'd like to see?
    In the picture, they are address 0, address 1, address 2 & address 3.

    2.  Converting 1234 to binary.  So, the binary value is 010011010010.  I'd like to see how the binary value looks like in each byte along with each memory address.

    Thanks, Have a great day

    • Hi Nguyen!

      1. The address of the first bit. If @x spans across 0x100-0x103, the address of @x is 0x100.

      2.

  • Kio

    Hi Alex,
    Just to be consistent across the "guide". You are missing

  • Jon

    It appears that uniform initialization still does not work in Eclipse (I'm using it on OS X if that matters)? Someone noted the same problem in 2016. I copied

    into my code just as they did and received the message "expected ';' at the end of declaration". The place it is pointing to put the semicolon at is at

    which clearly just causes more errors. Any help?

    • Neither your IDE nor OS matter, your compiler is what makes the difference.
      Check your settings to figure out which compiler you're using, then look up how to tell the compiler to use C++17 or later and change the settings accordingly. If your compiler doesn't support C++14 or later there's no reason to use it, get a new one.

      • Jon

        It says it is using the GCC C++ Compiler. Not sure how to check what version of C++ it is using. I tried changing the compiler to cygwin, but that didn't help.

        • Run
          g++ -v
          in your command line to see which version of g++ you're using (last line). Without checking I'd say anything after version 6 should support C++14.
          Then add -std=c++1z (or -std=c++17 or 14 if you're using a version earlier than gcc 8) to the compiler settings.

          • Jon

            It is an old version for some reason: 4.2.1. Been trying to figure out how to update it? Sadly, I'm not knowledgeable about doing unix command line stuff or how to update these types of things.

            • Jon

              OK, I am downloading gcc8 now.

              • Jon

                So, I think I've updated. Now when I do "g++ -v", I get the following:

                Using built-in specs.
                COLLECT_GCC=g++
                COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin17/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
                Target: x86_64-apple-darwin17
                Configured with: /opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_bblocal_var_buildworker_ports_build_ports_lang_gcc8/gcc8/work/gcc-8-20170604/configure --prefix=/opt/local --build=x86_64-apple-darwin17 --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,lto,fortran --libdir=/opt/local/lib/gcc8 --includedir=/opt/local/include/gcc8 --infodir=/opt/local/share/info --mandir=/opt/local/share/man --datarootdir=/opt/local/share/gcc-8 --with-local-prefix=/opt/local --with-system-zlib --disable-nls --program-suffix=-mp-8 --with-gxx-include-dir=/opt/local/include/gcc8/c++/ --with-gmp=/opt/local --with-mpfr=/opt/local --with-mpc=/opt/local --with-isl=/opt/local --enable-stage1-checking --disable-multilib --enable-lto --enable-libstdcxx-time --with-build-config=bootstrap-debug --with-as=/opt/local/bin/as --with-ld=/opt/local/bin/ld --with-ar=/opt/local/bin/ar --with-bugurl=https://trac.macports.org/newticket --disable-tls --with-pkgversion='MacPorts gcc8 8-20170604_2'
                Thread model: posix
                gcc version 8.0.0 20170604 (experimental) (MacPorts gcc8 8-20170604_2)

                It still does not compile correctly and I am unsure of how to add what you said to the compiler settings in Eclipse.

                • I don't have eclipse installed, some things might be called different.
                  Right click on your project
                  Project properties
                  C/C++ Build
                  Settings
                  Cross G++ Compiler -> Miscellaneous
                  In the "Other flags" textbox add -std=c++1z

                  Here's an image of the settings, the contents of the textbox might look different for you, that doesn't matter, just add what I said to the end http://blog.fellstat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/EclipseScreenSnapz013.png

                  While you're at it, you can also enable some more warnings to prevent you from writing bad code, add

                • Jon

                  It worked! Thanks! I added all of the things you said to.

  • yugin

    Is it merely a coincidence that "int" is used for both initialising integers and functions, or is there some deeper meaning or reason? Also, is it correct to say that when the compiler sees

    , it knows we're talking about a variable, while when it sees

    , it instead recognises it as a function?

    • Alex

      > Is it merely a coincidence that "int" is used for both initialising integers and functions, or is there some deeper meaning or reason?

      int has nothing to do with initialization. int defines a variable as an integer type, or in the case of a function, that the function either returns or accepts an integer type.

      > Also, is it correct to say that when the compiler sees

      , it knows we're talking about a variable, while when it sees

      , it instead recognises it as a function?

      You have the right idea, though your syntax isn't correct. int something() would definitely be a variable that is being initialized to . something() would be a function call. int something() would be a function declaration.

  • Ahmed Abbas sd

    hello everyone
    so i wanted to see the difference between the floating points
    but once i run the program
    i don't get decimals, all i get is integers
    only time i got decimal was from the last line of code in main()

    these are my results

    int = 3
    double = 25
    long double = 3
    input a number
    99
    input a number again
    28
    I devided them together, their result is = 3
    I devided thier result with long double & the answer is: 1
    I devided double by long double & the answer is: 8.33333
    Press any key to continue . . .

    • nascardriver

      Hi Ahmed!

      @devide divides int by int, which results in an int which is then implicitly casted to a long double when you return it. If you want a floating point result, at least one of the parts of the division has to be a floating point number.
      Same thing in line 13 and 14. 50, 2, 10 and 3 are integers. If you want doubles you need to use 50.0, 2.0, 10.0 and 3.0.

  • roman

    Hi there, Thank you for your attention. In the Variables instantiation section, the following statement is confusing to me:

    "Note that the equals sign here is just part of the syntax, and is not the same equals sign used to assign a value once the variable has been created."

    Are there two different  = signs? .....

    • Alex

      No, it's really poor wording on my part.

      I'm trying the get the point across that when you're doing an assignment, operator= (the assignment operator) is invoked. When you're doing an initialization, it isn't -- the equals sign is just considered part of the initialization syntax.

      This is most likely not that interesting now, but it does come up in programmer interviews, and becomes more relevant later once you learn about classes.

      I've reworded the sentence to try and better get the point across. Thanks for the feedback!

  • Michael Centeno

    "When we declare a variable as an integer, we are telling the compiler “the piece of memory that this variable addresses is going to be interpreted as a whole number”." A negative integer isn't a whole number, so this should be corrected :)

  • Brian Gaucher

    In your table with the primitive data types. You have a notes section. Nice, but It might be worth adding C++17 to the notes for integer types
    long long is C99/C++11 only
    to
    long long is C99/C++11 and upwards only
    unless it doesn't exist in C++17. I'm just guessing you forgot to add it.

  • Joe

    I am at my wits end.

    For academic purposes I want to specifically print out the garbage at a location.  I have looked up how to do this and on multiple web pages it states the same, declare an uninitialized variable and then cout the result but I keep getting a compile error.

    On multiple occasions I have written a function that returned garbage completely by accident, and now for the life of me I can not remember how I did it.

    so, my dilemma, how do I make the compiler print the value for an uninitialized variable?

    This is what I did, and what I have observed on other web pages.  
    Namely here:  
    https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29704710/why-are-memory-locations-assigned-garbage-values

    • nascardriver

      Hi Joe!

      There are no errors in your code, all you should get is a compile time warning. Which errors are you getting?

      Your code will most likely print 0, but then again, it's undefined, so you might get lucky. Make sure to build in release mode as some compilers initialize memory to a certain value automatically in debug mode.

      • joe

        Its just a compile time warning.

        There were times though in which it would print out like i said with a garbage value when i goofed on returning a value from a function.  I just can not remember how i did it.  Now that I'm trying to goof it's not working.  Lol.

        Ultimately i was trying to use a random garbage value as a seed for an rng to see how that would work but since i can't, I'll guess i try something else.

        • Alex

          Here's one way to do so using pointers:

          When I ran this in release mode a bunch of times, I got a bunch of 0's, and then some random large numbers.

  • Dear Teacher, please let me this question: In section "Uniform initialization in C++11" you suggest: "Rule: If you’re using a C++11 compatible compiler, favor uniform initialization". Do you suggest it for C++17 compatible compiler? Regards.

  • Linyuan

    Hello!
    i am very confused with this rule in the text:

    "Rule: Always initialize your fundamental variables, or assign a value to them as soon as possible after defining them."

    For a function, declaration is of cause different from definition, Declaration has actually the same meaning with the so called "function prototype". We just give out the return type and "head" of function in XXX.h. Definition of a function means that we write the body of this function in XXX.cpp.

    However for a variable, Declaration of variable is some form like

    in the header file XXX.h.

    but when I try to do some definition (initialization) about this value in the XXX.cpp like this:

    Error occurs. It says "value_from_user" has been defined twice.

    so here is my question: why would this happen?
    according to the rule, is seems that i have to do the both declaration(definition) and initialization in xxx.h such as:

    but yeah, that works when i do this in XXX.h

    What these three words "declaration", "definition" and "initialization" for a variable exactly mean???

    my opinion: for variable, declaration and definition are similar(almost the same in fact):

    and initialization is:

    so should i put this initialization in XXX.h or in a XXX.cpp???

    • Alex

      > However for a variable, Declaration of variable is some form like: int value_from_user;

      This is a definition (and a declaration). In order for it to be just a declaration, you need to add the keyword extern.

      > It says "value_from_user" has been defined twice.

      That's because of the definition of the variable in the header (that you thought was a declaration).

      Declaration: Tells the compiler about the name and the type of a variable or function, but does not tell the compiler where or how it's implemented.
      Definition: Tells the linker about the full specification of a variable or function, so it can be instantiated (for variables) or converted into code (functions)
      Initialization: Assigning an initial value to a variable at the point of creation/instantiation.

      Your statements under "my opinion" are correct.

      Non-const variables should generally be defined in XXX.cpp.
      Const variables can be defined in either XXX.cpp or XXX.h.

      I talk a lot more about these topics in chapter 4, particularly lessons 4.1 to 4.3.

  • Sirius

    Hi,
    Is it good practice to be initialising variables just before they are assigned a value from cin? For example is

    preferable over

    Or are they given values so soon afterwards that it's irrelevant? Thanks

    • nascardriver

      Hi Sirius!
      Yes please, having uninitialized variables can cause undefined behavior.

    • Alex

      Most often, if I'm going to immediately ask the user to enter a value for a variable defined immediately preceding the input, I don't initialize the variable. It seems unnecessary.

      Prior to C++11, a failed extraction from std::cin could leave the variable uninitialized. If you then tried to use that variable, you'd be accessing an uninitialized value, and who knows what you'd get. As of C++11, a failed extraction will zero the variable, so initializing beforehand now seems unnecessary. But some people prefer to do so anyway, out of habit.

Leave a Comment

Put all code inside code tags: [code]your code here[/code]