in C++, if a method is accepting left reference + pointer only,
it seems it suffices if we only have a template method with T& as its parameter, why we usually overload with test(T* ) as well ?
proof of concept: left reference method can take pointer argument.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template<class T>
void test(T& arg) {
T value = arg;
cout << *value << endl;
}
int main() {
int b = 4;
int* a = &b;
test(a); // compiles and runs without issue.
return 0;
}
Why [do] we usually overload with test(T* ) as well?
I am not sure that we usually do anything of the sort, but if one were to overload for a pointer, it would be because pointers behave differently than object types. Remember, a pointer in fact is not an object but an address to an object.
The reason that test(a) compiles and runs without issue is because it is accepting a reference to a pointer to an object as its parameter. Thus, when the line cout << *value << endl; executes, the pointer is dereferenced back to an object and we see 4 printed to standard out.
As #HolyBlackCat mentioned, we usually want do different things for T& and T*.
As indicated in the example, for test(T&) we usually need to manually do dereference, this would result in the difference in the behavior, so it makes sense to have a overload like this.
Ok, muddling though Stack on the particulars about void*, books like The C Programming Language (K&R) and The C++ Programming Language (Stroustrup). What have I learned? That void* is a generic pointer with no type inferred. It requires a cast to any defined type and printing void* just yields the address.
What else do I know? void* can't be dereferenced and thus far remains the one item in C/C++ from which I have discovered much written about but little understanding imparted.
I understand that it must be cast such as *(char*)void* but what makes no sense to me for a generic pointer is that I must somehow already know what type I need in order to grab a value. I'm a Java programmer; I understand generic types but this is something I struggle with.
So I wrote some code
typedef struct node
{
void* data;
node* link;
}Node;
typedef struct list
{
Node* head;
}List;
Node* add_new(void* data, Node* link);
void show(Node* head);
Node* add_new(void* data, Node* link)
{
Node* newNode = new Node();
newNode->data = data;
newNode->link = link;
return newNode;
}
void show(Node* head)
{
while (head != nullptr)
{
std::cout << head->data;
head = head->link;
}
}
int main()
{
List list;
list.head = nullptr;
list.head = add_new("My Name", list.head);
list.head = add_new("Your Name", list.head);
list.head = add_new("Our Name", list.head);
show(list.head);
fgetc(stdin);
return 0;
}
I'll handle the memory deallocation later. Assuming I have no understanding of the type stored in void*, how do I get the value out? This implies I already need to know the type, and this reveals nothing about the generic nature of void* while I follow what is here although still no understanding.
Why am I expecting void* to cooperate and the compiler to automatically cast out the type that is hidden internally in some register on the heap or stack?
I'll handle the memory deallocation later. Assuming I have no understanding of the type stored in void*, how do I get the value out?
You can't. You must know the valid types that the pointer can be cast to before you can dereference it.
Here are couple of options for using a generic type:
If you are able to use a C++17 compiler, you may use std::any.
If you are able to use the boost libraries, you may use boost::any.
Unlike Java, you are working with memory pointers in C/C++. There is no encapsulation whatsoever. The void * type means the variable is an address in memory. Anything can be stored there. With a type like int * you tell the compiler what you are referring to. Besides the compiler knows the size of the type (say 4 bytes for int) and the address will be a multiple of 4 in that case (granularity/memory alignment). On top, if you give the compiler the type it will perform consistency checks at compilation time. Not after. This is not happening with void *.
In a nutshell, you are working bare metal. The types are compiler directives and do not hold runtime information. Nor does it track the objects you are dynamically creating. It is merely a segment in memory that is allocated where you can eventually store anything.
The main reason to use void* is that different things may be pointed at. Thus, I may pass in an int* or Node* or anything else. But unless you know either the type or the length, you can't do anything with it.
But if you know the length, you can handle the memory pointed at without knowing the type. Casting it as a char* is used because it is a single byte, so if I have a void* and a number of bytes, I can copy the memory somewhere else, or zero it out.
Additionally, if it is a pointer to a class, but you don't know if it is a parent or inherited class, you may be able to assume one and find out a flag inside the data which tells you which one. But no matter what, when you want to do much beyond passing it to another function, you need to cast it as something. char* is just the easiest single byte value to use.
Your confusion derived from habit to deal with Java programs. Java code is set of instruction for a virtual machine, where function of RAM is given to a sort of database, which stores name, type, size and data of each object. Programming language you're learning now is meant to be compiled into instruction for CPU, with same organization of memory as underlying OS have. Existing model used by C and C++ languages is some abstract built on top of most of popular OSes in way that code would work effectively after being compiled for that platform and OS. Naturally that organization doesn't involve string data about type, except for famous RTTI in C++.
For your case RTTI cannot be used directly, unless you would create a wrapper around your naked pointer, which would store the data.
In fact C++ library contains a vast collection of container class templates that are useable and portable, if they are defined by ISO standard. 3/4 of standard is just description of library often referred as STL. Use of them is preferable over working with naked pointers, unless you mean to create own container for some reason. For particular task only C++17 standard offered std::any class, previously present in boost library. Naturally, it is possible to reimplement it, or, in some cases, to replace by std::variant.
Assuming I have no understanding of the type stored in void*, how do I get the value out
You don't.
What you can do is record the type stored in the void*.
In c, void* is used to pass around a binary chunk of data that points at something through one layer of abstraction, and recieve it at the other end, casting it back to the type that the code knows it will be passed.
void do_callback( void(*pfun)(void*), void* pdata ) {
pfun(pdata);
}
void print_int( void* pint ) {
printf( "%d", *(int*)pint );
}
int main() {
int x = 7;
do_callback( print_int, &x );
}
here, we forget thet ype of &x, pass it through do_callback.
It is later passed to code inside do_callback or elsewhere that knows that the void* is actually an int*. So it casts it back and uses it as an int.
The void* and the consumer void(*)(void*) are coupled. The above code is "provably correct", but the proof does not lie in the type system; instead, it depends on the fact we only use that void* in a context that knows it is an int*.
In C++ you can use void* similarly. But you can also get fancy.
Suppose you want a pointer to anything printable. Something is printable if it can be << to a std::ostream.
struct printable {
void const* ptr = 0;
void(*print_f)(std::ostream&, void const*) = 0;
printable() {}
printable(printable&&)=default;
printable(printable const&)=default;
printable& operator=(printable&&)=default;
printable& operator=(printable const&)=default;
template<class T,std::size_t N>
printable( T(&t)[N] ):
ptr( t ),
print_f( []( std::ostream& os, void const* pt) {
T* ptr = (T*)pt;
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < N; ++i)
os << ptr[i];
})
{}
template<std::size_t N>
printable( char(&t)[N] ):
ptr( t ),
print_f( []( std::ostream& os, void const* pt) {
os << (char const*)pt;
})
{}
template<class T,
std::enable_if_t<!std::is_same<std::decay_t<T>, printable>{}, int> =0
>
printable( T&& t ):
ptr( std::addressof(t) ),
print_f( []( std::ostream& os, void const* pt) {
os << *(std::remove_reference_t<T>*)pt;
})
{}
friend
std::ostream& operator<<( std::ostream& os, printable self ) {
self.print_f( os, self.ptr );
return os;
}
explicit operator bool()const{ return print_f; }
};
what I just did is a technique called "type erasure" in C++ (vaguely similar to Java type erasure).
void send_to_log( printable p ) {
std::cerr << p;
}
Live example.
Here we created an ad-hoc "virtual" interface to the concept of printing on a type.
The type need not support any actual interface (no binary layout requirements), it just has to support a certain syntax.
We create our own virtual dispatch table system for an arbitrary type.
This is used in the C++ standard library. In c++11 there is std::function<Signature>, and in c++17 there is std::any.
std::any is void* that knows how to destroy and copy its contents, and if you know the type you can cast it back to the original type. You can also query it and ask it if it a specific type.
Mixing std::any with the above type-erasure techinque lets you create regular types (that behave like values, not references) with arbitrary duck-typed interfaces.
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
int main () {
std::string foo = "string_1";
std::string bar = "string_2";
std::vector<std::string> myvector;
myvector.push_back (foo);
myvector.push_back (std::move(bar));
for (std::string x:myvector)
std::cout << x << '\n' ;
}
How's that code is diffrent when I exchange
for (std::string x:myvector)
for?
for (std::string& x:myvector)
I'm guessing there are a lot of places when I could find that, but I don't know what's the name of this measure, so I don't know what I should search for. Link to explanation will be enough if it's it's easier for you.
EDIT:
What's the diffrence between:
for(auto x:my_vector)
for(auto& x:my_vector)
for(auto&& x:my_vector)
What does '&' after class name mean?
The ampersand is part of the type in the declaration and signifies that the type is a reference. Reference is a form of indirection, similar to a pointer.
What's the diffrence between:
for(auto x:my_vector)
The loop variable is a non-reference. It will contain a copy of the object in the container.
for(auto& x:my_vector)
The loop variable is an lvalue reference. Since the variable references the objects in the container, they can be modified through that reference. This also avoids copying the objects, which may be advantageous if the copy is expensive.
for(auto&& x:my_vector)
The loop variable is a universal reference. This means that it will be either an lvalue or rvalue reference, depending on the type returned when the iterator of the container is dereferenced. As far as I know, there are only a few obscure cases where this is useful. You'll probably never need it.
I have been working on std::unique_ptr s but confused at some point about its semantics. From the documentation,
No two unique_ptr instances can manage the same object
But, even tough it is most probably a silly example, consider such a code.
std::unique_ptr<int> a(new int(10));
std::unique_ptr<int> b = std::unique_ptr<int>(a.get());
std::cout << *b << std::endl;
*a = 5;
std::cout << *b;
a and b is managing the same object here, and the output is 10 5. And of course I am getting an assertion failure error at the end on debug mode due to two unique ptrs trying to destruct same object at the end of scope.
I know it is silly and such usage is not advised, but I came across to this when it was not very obvious ( a class member calling another etc. ) and the assertion failure was the thing I started with.
My question is what the above sentence exactly means: it is posed by the standard and a decent compiler shouldnt allow you to do it (i am on vs2013 btw) or you must do it that way ( never cause two unique_ptrs point to same object) ( unlikely since the purpose of unique_ptrs is to make us less worried i suppose.) Or I should never use anything about raw pointers ( a.get() ) when unique_ptr s are involved.
Your last sentence is correct. As soon as you use raw pointers with a.get() as in the line below, you have thrown away all the promises that std::unique_ptr make to you.
std::unique_ptr<int> b = std::unique_ptr<int>(a.get());
The correct semantic to preserve the uniqueness while converting to a raw pointer would be to use a.release().
std::unique_ptr<int> b = std::unique_ptr<int>(a.release());
Of course, you would normally just use assignment or initializatoin with std::move if you were moving ownership between two std::unique_pointer instances, as given by the documentation. Either of the two lines below should be valid.
std::unique_ptr<int> b(std::move(a));
std::unique_ptr<int> b = std::move(a);
To make the std::move semantics more clear, consider the following test program.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <memory>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(){
std::unique_ptr<int> a(new int(10));
printf("%p\n", a.get());
std::unique_ptr<int> b(std::move(a));
printf("%p\n", a.get());
printf("%p\n", b.get());
}
On my system, the output is the following. Observe that the first line and the last line match.
0x1827010
(nil)
0x1827010
I am trying to learn rvalue references, as an exercise I tried to do answer the following.
Is it possible to write a function that can tell (at least at runtime, better if at compile time) if the passed value is a value (non reference), a rvalue or an lvalue? for a generic type? I want to extract as much information about the type as possible.
An alternative statement of the problem could be:
Can I have a typeid-like function that can tell as much as possible about the calling expression?, for example (and ideally) if the type is T, T&, T const&, or T&&.
Currently, for example, typeid drops some information about the type and one can do better (as in the example the const and non-const reference are distiguished). But how much better than typeid can one possibly do?
This is my best attempt so far. It can't distinguish between a rvalue and a "constant". First and second case in the example).
Maybe distiguishing case 1 and 2 is not possible in any circumstance? since both are ultimately rvalue? the the question is Even if both are rvalues can the two cases trigger different behavior?
In any case, it seems I overcomplicated the solution as I needed to resort to rvalue conditional casts, and ended up with this nasty code and not even 100% there.
#include<iostream>
#include<typeinfo>
template<class T>
void qualified_generic(T&& t){
std::clog << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << std::endl;
std::clog
<< typeid(t).name() // ok, it drops any qualification
<< (std::is_const<typename std::remove_reference<decltype(std::forward<T>(t))>::type>::value?" const":"") // seems to detect constness rigth
<< (std::is_lvalue_reference<decltype(std::forward<T>(t))>::value?"&":"")
<< (std::is_rvalue_reference<decltype(std::forward<T>(t))>::value?"&&":"") // cannot distiguish between passing a constant and an rvalue expression
<< std::endl
;
}
using namespace std;
int main(){
int a = 5;
int const b = 5;
qualified_generic(5); // prints "int&&", would plain "int" be more appropriate?
qualified_generic(a+1); // prints "int&&" ok
qualified_generic(a); // print "int&", ok
qualified_generic(b); // print "int const&", ok
}
Maybe the ultimate solution to distiguish between the cases will involve detecting a constexpr.
UPDATE: I found this talk by Scott Meyers where he claims that "The Standard sometimes requires typeid to give the 'wrong' answer". http://vimeo.com/97344493 about minute 44. I wonder if this is one of the cases.
UPDATE 2015: I revisited the problem using Boost TypeIndex and the result is still the same. For example using:
template<class T>
std::string qualified_generic(T&& t){
return boost::typeindex::type_id_with_cvr<decltype(t)>().pretty_name();
// or return boost::typeindex::type_id_with_cvr<T>().pretty_name();
// or return boost::typeindex::type_id_with_cvr<T&&>().pretty_name();
// or return boost::typeindex::type_id_with_cvr<T&>().pretty_name();
}
Still it is not possible to distinguish the type of 5 and a+1 in the above example.