How do I write binary data to a file in Modern C++? - c++11

Writing binary data to a file in C is simple: use fwrite, passing the address of the object you want to write and the size of the object. Is there something more "correct" for Modern C++ or should I stick to using FILE* objects? As far as I can tell the IOStream library is for writing formatted data rather than binary data, and the write member asks for a char* leaving me littering my code with casts.

So the game here is to enable argument dependent lookup on reading and writing, and make sure you don't try to read/write things that are not flat data.
It fails to catch data containing pointers, which also should not be read/written this way, but it is better than nothing
namespace serialize {
namespace details {
template<class T>
bool write( std::streambuf& buf, const T& val ) {
static_assert( std::is_standard_layout<T>{}, "data is not standard layout" );
auto bytes = sizeof(T);
return buf.sputn(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&val), bytes) == bytes;
}
template<class T>
bool read( std::streambuf& buf, T& val ) {
static_assert( std::is_standard_layout<T>{}, "data is not standard layout" );
auto bytes = sizeof(T);
return buf.sgetn(reinterpret_cast<char*>(&val), bytes) == bytes;
}
}
template<class T>
bool read( std::streambuf& buf, T& val ) {
using details::read; // enable ADL
return read(buf, val);
}
template<class T>
bool write( std::streambuf& buf, T const& val ) {
using details::write; // enable ADL
return write(buf, val);
}
}
namespace baz {
// plain old data:
struct foo {int x;};
// not standard layout:
struct bar {
bar():x(3) {}
operator int()const{return x;}
void setx(int s){x=s;}
int y = 1;
private:
int x;
};
// adl based read/write overloads:
bool write( std::streambuf& buf, bar const& b ) {
bool worked = serialize::write( buf, (int)b );
worked = serialize::write( buf, b.y ) && worked;
return worked;
}
bool read( std::streambuf& buf, bar& b ) {
int x;
bool worked = serialize::read( buf, x );
if (worked) b.setx(x);
worked = serialize::read( buf, b.y ) && worked;
return worked;
}
}
I hope you get the idea.
live example.
Possibly you should restrict said writing based off is_pod not standard layout, with the idea that if something special should happen on construction/destruction, maybe you shouldn't be binary blitting the type.

Since you are already bypassing all formatting, I would recommend using the std::filebuf class directly to avoid possible overheads from std::fstream; it's definitely better than FILE* due to RAII.
You can't escape from the casts this way, sadly. But it's not hard to wrap it, like:
template<class T>
void write(std::streambuf& buf, const T& val)
{
std::size_t to_write = sizeof val;
if (buf.sputn(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&val), to_write) != to_write)
// do some error handling here
}

Related

Composing boost::variant visitors for recursive variants

I have an application with several boost::variants which share many of the fields. I would like to be able to compose these visitors into visitors for "larger" variants without copying and pasting a bunch of code. It seems straightforward to do this for non-recursive variants, but once you have a recursive one, the self-references within the visitor (of course) point to the wrong class. To make this concrete (and cribbing from the boost::variant docs):
#include "boost/variant.hpp"
#include <iostream>
struct add;
struct sub;
template <typename OpTag> struct binop;
typedef boost::variant<
int
, boost::recursive_wrapper< binop<add> >
, boost::recursive_wrapper< binop<sub> >
> expression;
template <typename OpTag>
struct binop
{
expression left;
expression right;
binop( const expression & lhs, const expression & rhs )
: left(lhs), right(rhs)
{
}
};
// Add multiplication
struct mult;
typedef boost::variant<
int
, boost::recursive_wrapper< binop<add> >
, boost::recursive_wrapper< binop<sub> >
, boost::recursive_wrapper< binop<mult> >
> mult_expression;
class calculator : public boost::static_visitor<int>
{
public:
int operator()(int value) const
{
return value;
}
int operator()(const binop<add> & binary) const
{
return boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.left )
+ boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.right );
}
int operator()(const binop<sub> & binary) const
{
return boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.left )
- boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.right );
}
};
class mult_calculator : public boost::static_visitor<int>
{
public:
int operator()(int value) const
{
return value;
}
int operator()(const binop<add> & binary) const
{
return boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.left )
+ boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.right );
}
int operator()(const binop<sub> & binary) const
{
return boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.left )
- boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.right );
}
int operator()(const binop<mult> & binary) const
{
return boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.left )
* boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.right );
}
};
// I'd like something like this to compile
// class better_mult_calculator : public calculator
// {
// public:
// int operator()(const binop<mult> & binary) const
// {
// return boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.left )
// * boost::apply_visitor( *this, binary.right );
// }
// };
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
// result = ((7-3)+8) = 12
expression result(binop<add>(binop<sub>(7,3), 8));
assert( boost::apply_visitor(calculator(),result) == 12 );
std::cout << "Success add" << std::endl;
// result2 = ((7-3)+8)*2 = 12
mult_expression result2(binop<mult>(binop<add>(binop<sub>(7,3), 8),2));
assert( boost::apply_visitor(mult_calculator(),result2) == 24 );
std::cout << "Success mult" << std::endl;
}
I would really like something like that commented out better_mult_expression to compile (and work) but it doesn't -- because the this pointers within the base calculator visitor don't reference mult_expression, but expression.
Does anyone have suggestions for overcoming this or am I just barking down the wrong tree?
Firstly, I'd suggest the variant to include all possible node types, not distinguishing between mult and expression. This distinction makes no sense at the AST level, only at a parser stage (if you implement operator precedence in recursive/PEG fashion).
Other than that, here's a few observations:
if you encapsulate the apply_visitor dispatch into your evaluation functor you can reduce the code duplication by a big factor
your real question seems not to be about composing variants, but composing visitors, more specifically, by inheritance.
You can use using to pull inherited overloads into scope for overload resolution, so this might be the most direct answer:
Live On Coliru
struct better_mult_calculator : calculator {
using calculator::operator();
auto operator()(const binop<mult>& binary) const
{
return boost::apply_visitor(*this, binary.left) *
boost::apply_visitor(*this, binary.right);
}
};
IMPROVING!
Starting from that listing let's shave off some noise!
remove unncessary AST distinction (-40 lines, down to 55 lines of code)
generalize the operations; the <functional> header comes standard with these:
namespace AST {
template <typename> struct binop;
using add = binop<std::plus<>>;
using sub = binop<std::minus<>>;
using mult = binop<std::multiplies<>>;
using expr = boost::variant<int,
recursive_wrapper<add>,
recursive_wrapper<sub>,
recursive_wrapper<mult>>;
template <typename> struct binop { expr left, right; };
} // namespace AST
Now the entire calculator can be:
struct calculator : boost::static_visitor<int> {
int operator()(int value) const { return value; }
template <typename Op>
int operator()(AST::binop<Op> const& binary) const {
return Op{}(boost::apply_visitor(*this, binary.left),
boost::apply_visitor(*this, binary.right));
}
};
Here your variant can add arbitrary operations without even needing to touch the calculator.
Live Demo, 43 Lines Of Code
Like I mentioned starting off, encapsulate visitation!
struct Calculator {
template <typename... T> int operator()(boost::variant<T...> const& v) const {
return boost::apply_visitor(*this, v);
}
template <typename T>
int operator()(T const& lit) const { return lit; }
template <typename Op>
int operator()(AST::binop<Op> const& bin) const {
return Op{}(operator()(bin.left), operator()(bin.right));
}
};
Now you can just call your calculator, like intended:
Calculator calc;
auto result1 = calc(e1);
It will work when you extend the variant with operatios or even other literal types (like e.g. double). It will even work, regardless of whether you pass it an incompatible variant type that holds a subset of the node types.
To finish that off for maintainability/readability, I'd suggest making operator() only a dispatch function:
Full Demo
Live On Coliru
#include <boost/variant.hpp>
#include <iostream>
namespace AST {
using boost::recursive_wrapper;
template <typename> struct binop;
using add = binop<std::plus<>>;
using sub = binop<std::minus<>>;
using mult = binop<std::multiplies<>>;
using expr = boost::variant<int,
recursive_wrapper<add>,
recursive_wrapper<sub>,
recursive_wrapper<mult>>;
template <typename> struct binop { expr left, right; };
} // namespace AST
struct Calculator {
auto operator()(auto const& v) const { return call(v); }
private:
template <typename... T> int call(boost::variant<T...> const& v) const {
return boost::apply_visitor(*this, v);
}
template <typename T>
int call(T const& lit) const { return lit; }
template <typename Op>
int call(AST::binop<Op> const& bin) const {
return Op{}(call(bin.left), call(bin.right));
}
};
int main()
{
using namespace AST;
std::cout << std::boolalpha;
auto sub_expr = add{sub{7, 3}, 8};
expr e1 = sub_expr;
expr e2 = mult{sub_expr, 2};
Calculator calc;
auto result1 = calc(e1);
std::cout << "result1: " << result1 << " Success? " << (12 == result1) << "\n";
// result2 = ((7-3)+8)*2 = 12
auto result2 = calc(e2);
std::cout << "result2: " << result2 << " Success? " << (24 == result2) << "\n";
}
Still prints
result1: 12 Success? true
result2: 24 Success? true

How to set a function as a default parameter?

I ran into a problem with setting a function as a default parameter.
The following code doesn't make a lot of sense. What I want to achieve can be done in many different ways. This code only describes the problem I ran into and wish to know how to fix it to work to my specifications.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int double_the_number(int x)
{
return x * 2;
}
template<typename T, typename FunctionType>
std::vector<FunctionType> copy_with_criteria(T iter1, T iter2, FunctionType F(FunctionType))
{
std::vector<int> new_vector;
while(iter1 != iter2)
{
new_vector.push_back(F(*iter1++));
}
return new_vector;
}
int main()
{
std::vector<int> v {1,2,3,4,5};
auto new_vector = copy_with_criteria(v.begin(), v.end(), double_the_number);
for(int x : new_vector) std::cout << x << " ";
return 0;
}
When the code above is ran, it will output 2 4 6 8 10
What I want to achieve is if I call a function without specifying the criteria function copy_with_criteria(v.begin(), v.end()) I want it to output 1,2,3,4,5
That is, somehow I would like to set the function as a default parameter which is a type of elements inside some container (in this case vector) and which returns number that has been sent to it, like this (TypeOfElements is just an example of what type the default criteria function should be):
TypeOfElements default_function(TypeOfElements x) {
return x;
}
I would not like to use any external libraries. Also I am working with c++11.
If anyone could help me with this problem I would be very grateful!
Thank you :)
Overload your function.
template <typename T>
std::vector<typename std::iterator_traits<T>::value_type>
copy_with_criteria(T iter1, T iter2)
{
return std::vector<typename std::iterator_traits<T>::value_type>(iter1, iter2);
}
You can define your function as:
template<typename T, typename FunctionType = typename std::decay<decltype(*std::declval<T>())>::type>
std::vector<FunctionType> copy_with_criteria(T iter1, T iter2, FunctionType(*F)(FunctionType) = [](FunctionType v){ return v; }) {
// ...
}
It works in C++11 as requested (see it on Coliru).
The basic idea is that you can deduce FunctionType directly from the type of the iterators and not from the function F. Then you can give to F a default by using a lambda function that is nothing more than an identity function.
Otherwise you can simply overload copy_with_criteria as suggested by aschepler (I'd rather go with his approach instead of using a default argument) or simply define a different function with a meaningful name that is explicit about your intention for you are not using criteria during that kind of copy.
Edit
As suggested by #aschepler in the comments, you can use iterator_traits<T>::value_type instead of typename std::decay<decltype(*std::declval<T>())>::type to avoid problems with some types.
Functions are the wrong thing to use here. State can easily be useful. You want to use a generic function object. And deduce the return value.
In addition, using iterator ranges is questionable. The next iteration of C++ range library is going to reduce that use.
While you want a C++11 solution, there is no reason to use the C++03/C++11 style. Be forward looking.
So let us get started.
#include <iterator>
namespace notstd {
namespace adl_helper {
using std::begin; using std::end;
template<class C>
auto adl_begin( C&& )
-> decltype( begin( std::declval<C>() ) );
template<class T, std::size_t N>
auto adl_begin( T(*)[N] )
-> T*;
}
template<class C>
using iterator_type=decltype(
::notstd::adl_helper::adl_begin( std::declval<C>() )
);
}
This finds the iterator type of a container via calling std::begin in an ADL-enabled context. This emulates what a for(:) loop does reasonably well.
namespace notstd {
template<class C>
using value_type = typename std::iterator_traits<
iterator_type<C>
>::value_type;
}
now we can value_type<C> for some type C and get the type it contains.
namespace notstd {
struct make_a_copy_t {
template<class T>
auto operator()(T&& t)const
-> std::decay_t<T>
{
return std::forward<T>(t);
}
};
}
make_a_copy_t is a functor that copies stuff.
We are almost ready to solve your problem.
template<class Op=notstd::make_a_copy_t, class C,
class R=decltype( std::declval<Op&>()(std::declval<notstd::value_type<C&>>()) )
>
std::vector<R>
copy_with_criteria(C&& c, Op op={})
{
std::vector<R> new_vector;
for (auto&& e:std::forward<C>(c))
{
new_vector.push_back( op(decltype(e)(e)) );
}
return new_vector;
}
and I believe this satisfies your criteria.
You may also need
namespace notstd {
template<class It>
struct range_t {
It b = {};
It e = {};
It begin() const { return b; }
It end() const { return e; }
range_t( It s, It f ):b(std::move(s)), e(std::move(f)) {}
range_t( It s, std::size_t count ):
range_t( s, std::next(s, count) )
{}
range_t() = default;
range_t(range_t&&)=default;
range_t(range_t const&)=default;
range_t& operator=(range_t&&)=default;
range_t& operator=(range_t const&)=default;
range_t without_front(std::size_t N)const {
return {std::next(begin(), N), end()};
}
range_t without_back(std::size_t N)const {
return {begin(), std::prev(end(),N)};
}
std::size_t size() const {
return std::distance(begin(), end());
}
// etc
};
template<class It>
range_t<It> range( It b, It e ) {
return {std::move(b), std::move(e)};
}
template<class It>
range_t<It> range( It b, std::size_t count ) {
return {std::move(b), count};
}
template<class C>
range_t<iterator_type<C&>> range( C& c ) {
using std::begin; using std::end;
return {begin(c), end(c)};
}
}
which lets you do operations on subsections of a container as a range.
So suppose you want to take the first half of a vector of int and double it.
std::vector<int> some_values{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
auto front_half = notstd::range(some_values).without_back(some_values.size()/2);
auto front_doubled = copy_with_criteria( front_half, [](int x){return x*2;} );
and done.
Live example.

Create c-wrappers for c++ objects with default instance and deduce prototypes

I have a number of C++ structs with a number of methods. The C++ structs have a
"default" instance, and I would like to expose a "c" wrapper functions that uses
this default instance. But I would also like to avoid repeating all the
prototyles.
Alkind of C++11/14/17 and/or macro tricks are welcome, but I do not want to use
code-generators.
I have something that almost works, but I'm still struggling with a few
details.
// C++ class that have a "default-instance" ///////////////////////////////////
struct Foo {
int a() { return 1; }
int b(int) { return 2; }
int c(int, int) { return 3; }
};
Foo *FOO = nullptr;
// emulating existing c code that can not be changed //////////////////////////
typedef int (*ptr_a_t)();
ptr_a_t ptr_a = nullptr;
typedef int (*ptr_b_t)(int);
ptr_b_t ptr_b = nullptr;
typedef int (*ptr_c_t)(int, int);
ptr_c_t ptr_c = nullptr;
// Wrapper code (almost generic) //////////////////////////////////////////////
template <typename T, T>
struct Proxy;
// Wrapper class that will use the defualt instance if initialized (FOO is
// hardcoded).
template <typename T, typename R, typename... Args, R (T::*mf)(Args...)>
struct Proxy<R (T::*)(Args...), mf> {
static R call(Args... args) {
if (FOO) {
// ^^^
return ((*FOO).*mf)(args...);
// HARD-CODED ^^^^
} else {
return -1;
}
}
};
// Helper function to deduce the Proxy-class (method 'b' is hardcoded)
template <typename T, typename R, typename... Args>
auto deduce_args(R (T::*mf)(Args...)) -> Proxy<R (T::*)(Args...), &T::b> {
// HARD-CODED ^
return Proxy<R (T::*)(Args...), &T::b>();
// HARD-CODED ^
}
// Wrap the methods ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//#define wrap_a decltype(deduce_args(&Foo::a))::call
#define wrap_b decltype(deduce_args(&Foo::b))::call
//#define wrap_c decltype(deduce_args(&Foo::c))::call
int main() {
// Test that it works
//ptr_a = &wrap_a; // does not work due to hard-coded method
ptr_b = &wrap_b;
//ptr_c = &wrap_c; // does not work due to hard-coded method
return ptr_b(0);
}
I can live with the hard-coded "FOO" in the proxy, as I only need one proxy per class, but it would be cool if the instance pointer could be passed as a
template argument.
The hard-coded method in "deduce_args" is really anoying, how can I eliminate
that??
Is there a better way to do this (the function pointers can not be replaced with std::function).
Using C++14 alias turned out to be a much easier way of achieving what I wanted.
// compile using the "-std=c++14" flag
// C++ class that have a "default-instance" ///////////////////////////////////
struct Foo {
int a() { return 1; }
int b(int) { return 2; }
int c(int, int) { return 3; }
};
Foo *FOO = nullptr;
// emulating existing c code that can not be changed //////////////////////////
typedef int (*ptr_a_t)();
ptr_a_t ptr_a = nullptr;
typedef int (*ptr_b_t)(int);
ptr_b_t ptr_b = nullptr;
typedef int (*ptr_c_t)(int, int);
ptr_c_t ptr_c = nullptr;
// Wrapper code ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
template <typename T, T, typename P, P>
struct Proxy;
template <typename T, typename R, typename... Args, R (T::*mf)(Args...),
typename P, P p>
struct Proxy<R (T::*)(Args...), mf, P, p> {
static R call(Args... args) {
if (*p) {
return ((*(*p)).*mf)(args...);
} else {
return -1;
}
}
};
// Wrap the methods ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#define WRAP(n, obj, m, ptr) \
const auto &n = Proxy<decltype(&obj::m), &obj::m, obj **, &ptr>::call
WRAP(wrap_a, Foo, a, FOO);
WRAP(wrap_b, Foo, b, FOO);
WRAP(wrap_c, Foo, c, FOO);
int main() {
// Test that it works
ptr_a = &wrap_a;
ptr_b = &wrap_b;
ptr_c = &wrap_c;
return ptr_b(0);
}

Persistent expression templates with unique_ptr and matrices

I want to use expression templates to create a tree of objects that persists across statement. Building the tree initially involves some computations with the Eigen linear algebra library. The persistent expression template will have additional methods to compute other quantities by traversing the tree in different ways (but I'm not there yet).
To avoid problems with temporaries going out of scope, subexpression objects are managed through std::unique_ptr. As the expression tree is built, the pointers should be propagated upwards so that holding the pointer for the root object ensures all objects are kept alive. The situation is complicated by the fact that Eigen creates expression templates holding references to temporaries that go out of scope at the end of the statement, so all Eigen expressions must be evaluated while the tree is being constructed.
Below is a scaled-down implementation that seems to work when the val type is an object holding an integer, but with the Matrix type it crashes while constructing the output_xpr object. The reason for the crash seems to be that Eigen's matrix product expression template (Eigen::GeneralProduct) gets corrupted before it is used. However, none of the destructors either of my own expression objects or of GeneralProduct seems to get called before the crash happens, and valgrind doesn't detect any invalid memory accesses.
Any help will be much appreciated! I'd also appreciate comments on my use of move constructors together with static inheritance, maybe the problem is there somewhere.
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <Eigen/Core>
typedef Eigen::MatrixXi val;
// expression_ptr and derived_ptr: contain unique pointers
// to the actual expression objects
template<class Derived>
struct expression_ptr {
Derived &&transfer_cast() && {
return std::move(static_cast<Derived &&>(*this));
}
};
template<class A>
struct derived_ptr : public expression_ptr<derived_ptr<A>> {
derived_ptr(std::unique_ptr<A> &&p) : ptr_(std::move(p)) {}
derived_ptr(derived_ptr<A> &&o) : ptr_(std::move(o.ptr_)) {}
auto operator()() const {
return (*ptr_)();
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<A> ptr_;
};
// value_xpr, product_xpr and output_xpr: expression templates
// doing the actual work
template<class A>
struct value_xpr {
value_xpr(const A &v) : value_(v) {}
const A &operator()() const {
return value_;
}
private:
const A &value_;
};
template<class A,class B>
struct product_xpr {
product_xpr(expression_ptr<derived_ptr<A>> &&a, expression_ptr<derived_ptr<B>> &&b) :
a_(std::move(a).transfer_cast()), b_(std::move(b).transfer_cast()) {
}
auto operator()() const {
return a_() * b_();
}
private:
derived_ptr<A> a_;
derived_ptr<B> b_;
};
// Top-level expression with a matrix to hold the completely
// evaluated output of the Eigen calculations
template<class A>
struct output_xpr {
output_xpr(expression_ptr<derived_ptr<A>> &&a) :
a_(std::move(a).transfer_cast()), result_(a_()) {}
const val &operator()() const {
return result_;
}
private:
derived_ptr<A> a_;
val result_;
};
// helper functions to create the expressions
template<class A>
derived_ptr<value_xpr<A>> input(const A &a) {
return derived_ptr<value_xpr<A>>(std::make_unique<value_xpr<A>>(a));
}
template<class A,class B>
derived_ptr<product_xpr<A,B>> operator*(expression_ptr<derived_ptr<A>> &&a, expression_ptr<derived_ptr<B>> &&b) {
return derived_ptr<product_xpr<A,B>>(std::make_unique<product_xpr<A,B>>(std::move(a).transfer_cast(), std::move(b).transfer_cast()));
}
template<class A>
derived_ptr<output_xpr<A>> eval(expression_ptr<derived_ptr<A>> &&a) {
return derived_ptr<output_xpr<A>>(std::make_unique<output_xpr<A>>(std::move(a).transfer_cast()));
}
int main() {
Eigen::MatrixXi mat(2, 2);
mat << 1, 1, 0, 1;
val one(mat), two(mat);
auto xpr = eval(input(one) * input(two));
std::cout << xpr() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Your problem appears to be that you are using someone else's expression templates, and storing the result in an auto.
(This happens in product_xpr<A>::operator(), where you call *, which if I read it right, is an Eigen multiplication that uses expression templates).
Expression templates are often designed to presume the entire expression will occur on a single line, and it will end with a sink type (like a matrix) that causes the expression template to be evaluated.
In your case, you have a*b expression template, which is then used to construct an expression template return value, which you later evaluate. The lifetime of temporaries passed to * in a*b are going to be over by the time you reach the sink type (matrix), which violates what the expression templates expect.
I am struggling to come up with a solution to ensure that all temporary objects have their lifetime extended. One thought I had was some kind of continuation passing style, where instead of calling:
Matrix m = (a*b);
you do
auto x = { do (a*b) pass that to (cast to matrix) }
replace
auto operator()() const {
return a_() * b_();
}
with
template<class F>
auto operator()(F&& f) const {
return std::forward<F>(f)(a_() * b_());
}
where the "next step' is passed to each sub-expression. This gets trickier with binary expressions, in that you have to ensure that the evaluation of the first expression calls code that causes the second sub expression to be evaluated, and then the two expressions are combined, all in the same long recursive call stack.
I am not proficient enough in continuation passing style to untangle this knot completely, but it is somewhat popular in the functional programming world.
Another approach would be to flatten your tree into a tuple of optionals, then construct each optional in the tree using a fancy operator(), and manually hook up the arguments that way. Basically do manual memory management of the intermediate values. This will work if the Eigen expression templates are either move-aware or do not have any self-pointers, so that moving at the point of construction doesn't break things. Writing that would be challenging.
Continuation passing style, suggested by Yakk, solves the problem and isn't too insane (not more insane than template metaprogramming in general anyhow). The double lambda evaluation for the arguments of binary expressions can be tucked away in a helper function, see binary_cont in the code below. For reference, and since it's not entirely trivial, I'm posting the fixed code here.
If somebody understands why I had to put a const qualifier on the F type in binary_cont, please let me know.
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <Eigen/Core>
typedef Eigen::MatrixXi val;
// expression_ptr and derived_ptr: contain unique pointers
// to the actual expression objects
template<class Derived>
struct expression_ptr {
Derived &&transfer_cast() && {
return std::move(static_cast<Derived &&>(*this));
}
};
template<class A>
struct derived_ptr : public expression_ptr<derived_ptr<A>> {
derived_ptr(std::unique_ptr<A> &&p) : ptr_(std::move(p)) {}
derived_ptr(derived_ptr<A> &&o) = default;
auto operator()() const {
return (*ptr_)();
}
template<class F>
auto operator()(F &&f) const {
return (*ptr_)(std::forward<F>(f));
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<A> ptr_;
};
template<class A,class B,class F>
auto binary_cont(const derived_ptr<A> &a_, const derived_ptr<B> &b_, const F &&f) {
return a_([&b_, f = std::forward<const F>(f)] (auto &&a) {
return b_([a = std::forward<decltype(a)>(a), f = std::forward<const F>(f)] (auto &&b) {
return std::forward<const F>(f)(std::forward<decltype(a)>(a), std::forward<decltype(b)>(b));
});
});
}
// value_xpr, product_xpr and output_xpr: expression templates
// doing the actual work
template<class A>
struct value_xpr {
value_xpr(const A &v) : value_(v) {}
template<class F>
auto operator()(F &&f) const {
return std::forward<F>(f)(value_);
}
private:
const A &value_;
};
template<class A,class B>
struct product_xpr {
product_xpr(expression_ptr<derived_ptr<A>> &&a, expression_ptr<derived_ptr<B>> &&b) :
a_(std::move(a).transfer_cast()), b_(std::move(b).transfer_cast()) {
}
template<class F>
auto operator()(F &&f) const {
return binary_cont(a_, b_,
[f = std::forward<F>(f)] (auto &&a, auto &&b) {
return f(std::forward<decltype(a)>(a) * std::forward<decltype(b)>(b));
});
}
private:
derived_ptr<A> a_;
derived_ptr<B> b_;
};
template<class A>
struct output_xpr {
output_xpr(expression_ptr<derived_ptr<A>> &&a) :
a_(std::move(a).transfer_cast()) {
a_([this] (auto &&x) { this->result_ = x; });
}
const val &operator()() const {
return result_;
}
private:
derived_ptr<A> a_;
val result_;
};
// helper functions to create the expressions
template<class A>
derived_ptr<value_xpr<A>> input(const A &a) {
return derived_ptr<value_xpr<A>>(std::make_unique<value_xpr<A>>(a));
}
template<class A,class B>
derived_ptr<product_xpr<A,B>> operator*(expression_ptr<derived_ptr<A>> &&a, expression_ptr<derived_ptr<B>> &&b) {
return derived_ptr<product_xpr<A,B>>(std::make_unique<product_xpr<A,B>>(std::move(a).transfer_cast(), std::move(b).transfer_cast()));
}
template<class A>
derived_ptr<output_xpr<A>> eval(expression_ptr<derived_ptr<A>> &&a) {
return derived_ptr<output_xpr<A>>(std::make_unique<output_xpr<A>>(std::move(a).transfer_cast()));
}
int main() {
Eigen::MatrixXi mat(2, 2);
mat << 1, 1, 0, 1;
val one(mat), two(mat), three(mat);
auto xpr = eval(input(one) * input(two) * input(one) * input(two));
std::cout << xpr() << std::endl;
return 0;
}

Is there a better way in C++11 to construct classes on the stack

If I have two classes D1 and D2 that both derive from class Base, and I want to construct a particular one based on say, a boolean variable, there are various well known techniques, eg use a factory, or use smart pointers.
For example,
std::unique_ptr<Base> b;
if (flag)
{
b.reset(new D1());
}
else
{
b.reset(new D2());
}
But this uses the heap for allocation, which is normally fine but I can think of times where it would be good to avoid the performance hit of a memory allocation.
I tried:
Base b = flag ? D1() : D2(); // doesn’t compile
Base& b = flag ? D1() : D2(); // doesn’t compile
Base&& b = flag ? D1() : D2(); // doesn’t compile
Base&& b = flag ? std::move(D1()) : std::move(D2()); // doesn’t compile
My intention is that D1 or D2 whichever is chosen is constructed on the stack, and its lifetime ends when b goes out of scope. Intuitively, I feel there should be a way to do it.
I played with lambda functions and found that this works:
Base&& b = [j]()->Base&&{
switch (j)
{
case 0:
return std::move(D1());
default:
return std::move(D2());
}
}();
Why it doesn’t suffer from the same issues as the others that do not compile I do not know.
Further, it would only be suitable for classes that are inexpensive to copy, because despite my explicit request to use move, it does I think still call a copy constructor. But if I take away the std::move, I get a warning!
I feel this is closer to what i think should be possible but it still has some issues:
the lambda syntax is not friendly to old-timers who havent yet
embraced the new features of the language ( myself included)
the copy constructor call as mentioned
Is there a better way of doing this?
If you know all the types, you can use a Boost.Variant, as in:
class Manager
{
using variant_type = boost::variant<Derived1, Derived2>;
struct NameVisitor : boost::static_visitor<const char*>
{
template<typename T>
result_type operator()(T& t) const { return t.name(); }
};
public:
template<typename T>
explicit Manager(T t) : v_(std::move(t)) {}
template<typename T>
Manager& operator=(T t)
{ v_ = std::move(t); return *this; }
const char* name()
{ return boost::apply_visitor(NameVisitor(), v_); }
private:
variant_type v_;
};
Note: by using variant, you no longer need a base class or virtual functions.
The way you are trying to do it, you are going to get a dangling reference. Having the std::move is just hiding that.
Generally I just structure the code so that the logic is in a separate function. That is, instead of
void f(bool flag)
{
Base &b = // some magic to choose which derived class to instantiate
// do something with b
}
I do
void doSomethingWith(Base &b)
{
// do something with b
}
void f(bool flag)
{
if (flag) {
D1 d1;
doSomethingWith(d1);
}
else {
D2 d2;
doSomethingWith(d2);
}
}
However, if that doesn't work for you, you can use a union inside a class to help manage it:
#include <iostream>
using std::cerr;
struct Base {
virtual ~Base() { }
virtual const char* name() = 0;
};
struct Derived1 : Base {
Derived1() { cerr << "Constructing Derived1\n"; }
~Derived1() { cerr << "Destructing Derived1\n"; }
virtual const char* name() { return "Derived1"; }
};
struct Derived2 : Base {
Derived2() { cerr << "Constructing Derived2\n"; }
~Derived2() { cerr << "Destructing Derived2\n"; }
virtual const char* name() { return "Derived2"; }
};
template <typename B,typename D1,typename D2>
class Either {
union D {
D1 d1;
D2 d2;
D() { }
~D() { }
} d;
bool flag;
public:
Either(bool flag)
: flag(flag)
{
if (flag) {
new (&d.d1) D1;
}
else {
new (&d.d2) D2;
}
}
~Either()
{
if (flag) {
d.d1.~D1();
}
else {
d.d2.~D2();
}
}
B& value()
{
if (flag) {
return d.d1;
}
else {
return d.d2;
}
}
};
static void test(bool flag)
{
Either<Base,Derived1,Derived2> either(flag);
Base &b = either.value();
cerr << "name=" << b.name() << "\n";
}
int main()
{
test(true);
test(false);
}
gives this output:
Constructing Derived1
name=Derived1
Destructing Derived1
Constructing Derived2
name=Derived2
Destructing Derived2
You can ensure you have enough space for allocating either on the stack with std::aligned_storage. Something like:
// use macros for MAX since std::max is not const-expr
std::aligned_storage<MAX(sizeof(D1), sizeof(D2)), MAX(alignof(D1), alignof(D2))> storage;
Base* b = nullptr;
if (flag)
b = new (&storage) D1();
else
b = new (&storage) D2();
You can make a wrapper type for aligned_storage that just takes two types and does the maximum of size/alignment of the two without needing to repeat yourself in the code using it. You can emulate aligned_storage for non-over-aligned types fairly trivially too if you need C++98 support. The custom type without over-aligned support would be something like:
template <typename T1, typename T2>
class storage
{
union
{
double d; // to force strictest alignment (on most platforms)
char b[sizeof(T1) > sizeof(T2) ? sizeof(T1) : sizeof(T2)];
} u;
};
And that can be given protections against copies/moves if you so wish. It can even be turned into a simplified Boost.Variant with relatively little work.
Note that with this approach (or some of the others), destructors will not be called automatically on your class and you must call them yourself. If you want RAII patterns to apply here, you can extend the example class above to store a deleter function that is bound during construction into the space.
template <typename T1, typename T2>
class storage
{
using deleter_t = void(*)(void*);
std::aligned_storage<
sizeof(T1) > sizeof(T2) ? sizeof(T1) : sizeof(T2),
alignof(T1) > alignof(T2) ? alignof(T1) : alignof(T2)
> space;
deleter_t deleter = nullptr;
public:
storage(const storage&) = delete;
storage& operator=(const storage&) = delete;
template <typename T, typename ...P>
T* emplace(P&&... p)
{
destroy();
deleter = [](void* obj){ static_cast<T*>(obj)->~T(); }
return new (&space) T(std::forward<P>(p)...);
}
void destroy()
{
if (deleter != nullptr)
{
deleter(&space);
deleter = nullptr;
}
}
};
// usage:
storage<D1, D2> s;
B* b = flag ? s.emplace<D1>() : s.emplace<D2>();
And of course that can all be done in C++98, just with a lot more work (especially in terms of emulating the emplace function).
How about
B&&b = flag ? static_cast<B&&>(D1()) : static_cast<B&&>(D2());
If you just need them to be freed when the reference goes out of scope, you could implement another simple class (maybe named DestructorDecorator) that points to the object (D1 or D2). And then you just have to implement ~DestructorDecorator to call the destructor of D1 or D2.
You haven't mentioned it, your flag is known at compile time?
As far as a compile-time flag is concerned, you can use template magic to deal with the conditional construction of the class:
First, declaring a template create_if which takes two types and a boolean:
template <typename T, typename F, bool B> struct create_if {};
Second, specializing create_if for true and false values:
template <typename T, typename F> struct create_if<T, F, true> { using type = T; };
template <typename T, typename F> struct create_if<T, F, false> { using type = F; };
Then, you can do this:
create_if<D1, D2, true>::type da; // Create D1 instance
create_if<D1, D2, false>::type db; // Create D2 instance
You can change the boolean literals with your compile-time flag or with a constexpr function:
constexpr bool foo(const int i) { return i & 1; }
create_if<D1, D2, foo(100)>::type dc; // Create D2 instance
create_if<D1, D2, foo(543)>::type dd; // Create D1 instance
This is valid only if the flag is known at compile time, I hope it helps.
Live example.

Resources