Copy constructor called multiple times for custom map values - c++11

I've just started using maps in C++, I implemented this piece of code where I've used custom datatype for map values. But I haven't understood the copy constructor part. It's being called multiple times only when I use
person.insert(make_pair(55,Person("Bob",23)));
person.insert(make_pair(35,Person("Bill",25)));
Can someone kindly explain me the working of the copy constructor in this code ??
#include<iostream>
#include<map>
using namespace std;
class Person{
private:
string name;
int age;
public:
Person(const Person &other){
cout<<"Copy Constructor Running !!"<<endl;
name=other.name;
age=other.age;
}
Person():name(""),age(0){
}
Person(string name,int age):name(name), age(age){
}
void print(){
cout<<name<<" : "<<age<<endl;
}
};
int main(){
map<int,Person> person;
person[50]=Person("Mike",19);
person[20]=Person("Julia",20);
person[30]=Person("Raj",29);
person[10]=Person("Kendra",20);
person[70]=Person("Rahul",18);
person.insert(make_pair(55,Person("Bob",23)));
person.insert(make_pair(35,Person("Bill",25)));
for(auto it=person.begin();it!=person.end();it++){
cout<<it->first<<" : ";
it->second.print();
}
return 0;
}
OUTPUT:
Copy Constructor Running !!
Copy Constructor Running !!
Copy Constructor Running !!
Copy Constructor Running !!
10 : Kendra : 20
20 : Julia : 20
30 : Raj : 29
35 : Bill : 25
50 : Mike : 19
55 : Bob : 23
70 : Rahul : 18

Person("Bob",23) constructs a temporary Person instance; let's call it P. Then make_pair(55, P) constructs a temporary pair, copying P into its member pair.second. Finally, map::insert copies elements of that pair into its own data structures.
person[50]=Person("Mike",19) doesn't use a copy constructor, but rather a copy assignment operator (which you haven't instrumented and so don't see being called).
If you want to reduce or avoid copies:
person.emplace(55, Person("Bob",23));
will execute copy constructor once;
person.emplace(std::piecewise_construct,
std::forward_as_tuple(55),
std::forward_as_tuple("Bob", 23));
won't call copy constructor at all, but use provided arguments to construct Person object directly in the map's internal storage.

Related

Ruby C extension : How do I know that a ruby VALUE generated in my C code will be correctly cleaned by GC?

I'm trying to write a really small C extension. So I don't want to make a whole ruby class, with initializer, allocator, and so forth. All I want to do is add a static method to an existing class, method which will run an algorithm and return a result. Unfortunately, all documentation I find only speak about wrapping a C struct into a VALUE, but that's not my use case.
What I want to know : if I create a ruby object (which will allocate memory) inside my C code, and that I return it as the result of my function, will it be taken care of properly by the garbage collector, or is it going to leak ?
Example :
void Init_my_extension()
{
VALUE cFooModule;
cFooModule = rb_const_get(rb_cObject, rb_intern("Foo"));
rb_define_singleton_method(cFooModule, "big_calc", method_big_calc, 1);
}
VALUE method_big_calc(VALUE self, VALUE input)
{
VALUE result;
result = rb_ary_new();
return result;
}
Will the array that was allocated by rb_ary_new() be properly cleaned when it's not used anymore ? How is the garbage collector aware of references to this value ?
Yes, You code properly clean memory if You using rb_ary_new().
In my opinion You need answer on other question. How create you own object.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/extending_ruby.html
first You must create rb_define_alloc_func(cYouObject,t_allocate);
similar this
struct stru { char a; };
void t_free(struct stru *a) { }
static VALUE t_allocate(VALUE obj) { return
Data_Wrap_Struct(obj,NULL,t_free,m); }

C++ std::move assignment from scratch - low maintainability

I like the new std::move but afraid that it reduces my program maintainability.
To my knowledge, if I create move constructor or move assignment operator=(), I have to write it from scratch. That is where the problem begins.
Code version 1
Here is a tiny class:-
class B{
M shouldBeMove; //if it is copied, it is still correct (but prefer move)
C shouldBeCopy; //can be copied or moved, both are equal and ok
//wow, I don't even have to write this line for operator=():-
// this->shouldBeCopy = that.shouldBeCopy
}
B b1;
B b2=b1;
Currently, B b2=b1 will copy both M and C. It is ok.
Code version 2
Now I want to use the power of std::move :-
class B{
M shouldBeMove; //now, the program is refactored that it must be moved
// M now has "M& operator=(M&& that)"
C shouldBeCopy;
B& operator=(B&& that){
this->shouldBeMove=std::move(that.shouldBeMove);
this->shouldBeCopy=that.shouldBeCopy; //<-- a bit tedious (1#)
// ... imagine that there are 10 variables to be copied ...
}
}
B b1;
B b2=std::move(b1);
It is still ok, but a bit tedious. (1#)
Code version 3
Then one month in the future, I may want to add a new field e.g. C shouldBeCopy2 to B, I also have to add a line into operator= :-
B& operator=(B&& that){
this->shouldBeMove=std::move(that.shouldBeMove);
this->shouldBeCopy=that.shouldBeCopy;
this->shouldBeCopy2=that.shouldBeCopy2; //<--- new line
}
I think I am a type that may forget to add that line. (2#)
Question:
1#. How to make it not tedious?
2#. How to foolproof my mistake?
You should follow rule of zero and let compiler generate the constructors and assign operators for you.
But when you need to implement a moveable type, make sure you implement both move assignment operator (T& operator=(T&&)) and move constructor (T(T&&)). Please follow rule of five and ensure the class have proper copy constructor/move constructor/copy assignment operator/move assignment operator/destructor
https://ideone.com/UVZNOM
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class M{
public: int database=0;
M& operator=(M&& other){
this->database=other.database;
other.database=0;
return *this;
}
M(M &&other) {
*this = std::move(other);
}
M (M& m)=default;
M ()=default;
~M() { /* free db */ }
};
class B{ // As rule of zero, you don't need to implement constructors and assignment operators
public: M shouldMove;
};
int main() {
B b;
b.shouldMove.database=5;
B b2=std::move(b);
std::cout<< b.shouldMove.database <<std::endl;
std::cout<< b2.shouldMove.database <<std::endl;
return 0;
}

Reimplement insert iterator to make easy work with "related types" to the one stored on the container

We have the following lightweight classes:
struct A {};
struct B { A get_a() const { return /* sth */; } };
And let's suppose I have an ordered container of type A, and I want to copy objects from another container of type B to it:
std::copy(b_cont.begin(), b_cont.end(),
std::make_insert_iterator(a_cont, a_cont.end())
);
Of course, it won't work because a_cont and b_cont have different types, and classes A and B don't provide conversion operators. The most obvious solution is to call the function get_a for each B object on the range [b_cont.begin(), b_cont.end()), so, lets write a custom insert iterator:
template<template<class...> class container>
struct ba_insert_iterator : public std::insert_iterator<container<A> >
{
using std::insert_iterator<container<A>>::insert_iterator;
ba_insert_iterator& operator=(B const& o)
{
std::insert_iterator<container<A>>::operator=(o.get_a());
return *this;
}
};
template<template<class...> class container>
ba_insert_iterator<container> make_a_inserter(container<A>& c)
{ return ba_insert_iterator<container>(c, c.end()); }
Just an iterator that receives an object of type B, instead of another one of type A, and a function to create them easily. But when instantiating the template:
std::copy(b_cont.begin(), b_cont.end(), make_a_inserter(a_cont));
It says that it doesn't find the operator= because the second operand is an A object (as expected), but the first operand is an std::insert_iterator<std::set<A> >!!, so the compiler is "casting" the iterator to its clase base, which of course lacks of a method for receiving B objects to insert.
Why does it happen?
You inherited operator* (and operator++ too, for that matter) from insert_iterator.
And those return insert_iterator&, not ba_insert_iterator&.
For obvious reasons, std::copy dereferences the output iterator before assigning to it.

C++ lambdas in Visual Studio 2013: capturing this pointer

Looks like if lambda is defined inside a member function and this is captured then inside lambda all class members can be accesses without using this keyword, that is I can do
some_class_field = ....
instead of
this->some_class_field = ....
Is it portable behavior or specific to Visual Studio?
Thanks.
It is expected :
§ 5.1.2 paragraph 7
The lambda-expression’s compound-statement yields the function-body (8.4) of the function call operator,
but for purposes of name lookup (3.4), determining the type and value of this (9.3.2) and transforming idexpressions
referring to non-static class members into class member access expressions using (*this) (9.3.1),
the compound-statement is considered in the context of the lambda-expression. [ Example:
struct S1 {
int x, y;
int operator()(int);
void f() {
[=]()->int {
return operator()(this->x + y); // equivalent to S1::operator()(this->x + (*this).y)
// this has type S1*
};
}
};

Boost serialization end of file

I serialize multiple objects into a binary archive with Boost.
When reading back those objects from a binary_iarchive, is there a way to know how many objects are in the archive or simply a way to detect the end of the archive ?
The only way I found is to use a try-catch to detect the stream exception.
Thanks in advance.
I can think of a number of approaches:
Serialize STL containers to/from your archive (see documentation). The archive will automatically keep track of how many objects there are in the containers.
Serialize a count variable before serializing your objects. When reading back your objects, you'll know beforehand how many objects you expect to read back.
You could have the last object have a special value that acts as a kind of sentinel that indicates the end of the list of objects. Perhaps you could add an isLast member function to the object.
This is not very pretty, but you could have a separate "index file" alongside your archive that stores the number of objects in the archive.
Use the tellp position of the underlying stream object to detect if you're at the end of file:
Example (just a sketch, not tested):
std::streampos archiveOffset = stream.tellg();
std::streampos streamEnd = stream.seekg(0, std::ios_base::end).tellg();
stream.seekg(archiveOffset);
while (stream.tellp() < streamEnd)
{
// Deserialize objects
}
This might not work with XML archives.
Do you have all your objects when you begin serializing? If not, you are "abusing" boost serialization - it is not meant to be used that way. However, I am using it that way, using try catch to find the end of the file, and it works for me. Just hide it away somewhere in the implementation. Beware though, if using it this way, you need to either not serialize pointers, or disable pointer tracking.
If you do have all the objects already, see Emile's answer. They are all valid approaches.
std::istream* stream_;
boost::iostreams::filtering_streambuf<boost::iostreams::input>* filtering_streambuf_;
...
stream_ = new std::istream(memoryBuffer_);
if (stream_) {
filtering_streambuf_ = new boost::iostreams::filtering_streambuf<boost::iostreams::input>();
if (filtering_streambuf_) {
filtering_streambuf_->push(boost::iostreams::gzip_decompressor());
filtering_streambuf_->push(*stream_);
archive_ = new eos::portable_iarchive(*filtering_streambuf_);
}
}
using zip when reading data from the archives, and filtering_streambuf have such method as
std::streamsize std::streambuf::in_avail()
Get number of characters available to read
so i check the end of archive as
bool IArchiveContainer::eof() const {
if (filtering_streambuf_) {
return filtering_streambuf_->in_avail() == 0;
}
return false;
}
It is not helping to know how many objects are last in the archive, but helping to detect the end of them
(i'm using eof test only in the unit test for serialization/unserialization my classes/structures - to make sure that i'm reading all what i'm writing)
Sample code which I used to debug the similar issue
(based on Emile's answer) :
#include <fstream>
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/archive/binary_oarchive.hpp>
#include <boost/archive/binary_iarchive.hpp>
struct A{
int a,b;
template <typename T>
void serialize(T &ar, int ){
ar & a;
ar & b;
}
};
int main(){
{
std::ofstream ofs( "ff.ar" );
boost::archive::binary_oarchive ar( ofs );
for(int i=0;i<3;++i){
A a {2,3};
ar << a;
}
ofs.close();
}
{
std::ifstream ifs( "ff.ar" );
ifs.seekg (0, ifs.end);
int length = ifs.tellg();
ifs.seekg (0, ifs.beg);
boost::archive::binary_iarchive ar( ifs );
while(ifs.tellg() < length){
A a;
ar >> a;
std::cout << "a.a-> "<< a.a << " and a.b->"<< a.b << "\n";
}
}
return 0;
}
you just read a byte from the file.
If you do not reach the end,
backword a byte then.

Resources