I've got a variant class. It has a pair of constructors:
/// Construct and fill.
template <typename T>
inline
variant (const T& t)
{
YYASSERT (sizeof (T) <= S);
new (buffer.raw) T(t);
}
template <typename T>
inline
variant (T&& t)
{
YYASSERT (sizeof (T) <= S);
new (buffer.raw) T(std::move(t));
}
Now I've called those constructors in this code:
parser::symbol_type
parser::make_IDENTIFIER (const Wide::ParsedFile::Identifier*& v)
{
return symbol_type (token::IDENTIFIER, v);
}
symbol_type takes a variant as it's second argument in this specific constructor, and v is being implicitly converted.
However, MSVC will try to use the rvalue reference constructor instead of using the other constructor, resulting in a compilation error when it attempts to new a reference. Why is that, and how can I make it stop?
You generally should not overload a templated T&& function. You should instead have the single function which forwards:
template <typename T>
inline
variant (T&& t)
{
typedef typename std::remove_reference<T>::type Tr;
YYASSERT (sizeof (Tr) <= S);
new (buffer.raw) Tr(std::forward<T>(t));
}
This has the functionality of your two overloads, while avoiding the problem of picking the wrong one.
I believe (not positive) that these are the two variants in your overload set:
varaint<const Wide::ParsedFile::Identifier*>(const Wide::ParsedFile::Identifier*const&)
varaint<const Wide::ParsedFile::Identifier*&>(const Wide::ParsedFile::Identifier*&)
And the second one wins because it is more specialized than the first (I'm making an educated guess, I'm not 100% positive).
The second template would be a better match, because the const specifiers are in different places in your function and in the first constructor.
In the first overload you will have T being deduced as
const Wide::ParsedFile::Identifier*
And then creating a const reference to that type. That adds an extra const.
Related
For the following code snippet (using C++14 standard), can we declare setDataVectoras noexcept?
class Data {
public:
using Type = ...; // A class with a default move assignment operator. Or even just uint32_t
void setDataVector(std::vector<Type> &&input) // Can be declared as noexcept?
{
data = std::move(input);
}
private:
std::vector<Type> data;
};
In cppreference, it is mentioned that until C++17, the move assignment operator for std::vector is not noexcept.
vector& operator=( vector&& other );
Can it really throw even for trivial datatypes like integer?
What is confusing me is that move operations should be exception-safe but std::vector and std::string for example don't have a noexcept move assignment operators.
So, What am I missing here?
I'm trying to create a struct template with a variadic template type pack, that can deduct the sum of the size of all types passed in.
Below you find a simplified example, in the real-world context, the size computed is used to create further member objects.
template <typename... Types>
struct OverallSize
{
template <typename FirstType, typename... NextTypes>
static constexpr size_t sizesum() { return sizeof (FirstType) + sizesum<NextTypes...>(); }
template <typename LastType>
static constexpr size_t sizesum() { return sizeof (LastType); }
static constexpr size_t size = sizesum<Types...>();
};
// Should work e.g. like this
auto s = OverallSize<int, float, char>::size; // s will be 9 on x86-64
I'm used to this recursive parameter unpacking approach when it comes to argument lists and assumed this works as well with argument-less functions and explicit template specification. However I get the following error when compiling with clang
Call to 'sizesum' is ambiguous
...
Candidate function [with FirstType = unsigned long, NextTypes = <>]
Candidate function [with LastType = unsigned long]
So it seems as if the last recursion iteration doesn't work here – not sure why the compiler doesn't simply chose the most obvious choice: The one with only one template type – just as it would happen if there was an actual template argument passed to the function.
So, what do I have to do to make this compile and work as desired?
For C++14 you can use SFINAE:
template <
typename FirstType,
typename... NextTypes,
std::enable_if_t<sizeof...(NextTypes) >= 1>* = nullptr >
static constexpr size_t sizesum() {
return sizeof (FirstType) + sizesum<NextTypes...>();
}
this template will be considered only if parameters pack has size >= 1.
Demo
This is part of an assignment, I am stuck at this instruction:
Sort your randomly generated pool of schedules.
Use std::stable_sort,
passing in an object of type schedule_compare as the custom comparison
operator.
UPDATE: I was checking cppreference stable_srot(), see method definition below:
void stable_sort ( RandomAccessIterator first, RandomAccessIterator
last,Compare comp );
, and it seems from what I understood is that you can only pass functions to the last argument (Compare comp) of the stable_sort() i.e:
However, in the instructions, it says that you need to pass an object of type schedule_compare. How is this possible ?
This is my code below:
struct schedule_compare
{
explicit schedule_compare(runtime_matrix const& m)
: matrix_{m} { }
bool operator()(schedule const& obj1, schedule const& obj2) {
if (obj1.score > obj2.score)
return true;
else
return false;
}
private:
runtime_matrix const& matrix_;
};
auto populate_gene_pool(runtime_matrix const& matrix,
size_t const pool_size, random_generator& gen)
{
std::vector<schedule> v_schedule;
v_schedule.reserve(pool_size);
std::uniform_int_distribution<size_t> dis(0, matrix.machines() - 1);
// 4. Sort your randomly generated pool of schedules. Use
// std::stable_sort, passing in an object of type
// schedule_compare as the custom comparison operator.
std::stable_sort(begin(v_schedule), end(v_schedule), ???)
return; v_schedule;
}
For algorithm functions that accepts a "function" (like std::stable_sort) you can pass anything that can be called as a function.
For example a pointer to a global, namespace or static member function. Or you can pass a function-like object instance (i.e. an instance of a class that has a function call operator), also known as a functor object.
This is simply done by creating a temporary object, and passing it to the std::stable_sort (in your case):
std::stable_sort(begin(v_schedule), end(v_schedule), schedule_compare(matrix));
Since the schedule_compare structure have a function call operator (the operator() member function) it can generally be treated like any other function, including being "called".
The following code will not compile on gcc 4.8.2.
The problem is that this code will attempt to copy construct an std::pair<int, A> which can't happen due to struct A missing copy and move constructors.
Is gcc failing here or am I missing something?
#include <map>
struct A
{
int bla;
A(int blub):bla(blub){}
A(A&&) = delete;
A(const A&) = delete;
A& operator=(A&&) = delete;
A& operator=(const A&) = delete;
};
int main()
{
std::map<int, A> map;
map.emplace(1, 2); // doesn't work
map.emplace(std::piecewise_construct,
std::forward_as_tuple(1),
std::forward_as_tuple(2)
); // works like a charm
return 0;
}
As far as I can tell, the issue isn't caused by map::emplace, but by pair's constructors:
#include <map>
struct A
{
A(int) {}
A(A&&) = delete;
A(A const&) = delete;
};
int main()
{
std::pair<int, A> x(1, 4); // error
}
This code example doesn't compile, neither with coliru's g++4.8.1 nor with clang++3.5, which are both using libstdc++, as far as I can tell.
The issue is rooted in the fact that although we can construct
A t(4);
that is, std::is_constructible<A, int>::value == true, we cannot implicitly convert an int to an A [conv]/3
An expression e can be implicitly converted to a type T if and only if the declaration T t=e; is well-formed,
for some invented temporary variable t.
Note the copy-initialization (the =). This creates a temporary A and initializes t from this temporary, [dcl.init]/17. This initialization from a temporary tries to call the deleted move ctor of A, which makes the conversion ill-formed.
As we cannot convert from an int to an A, the constructor of pair that one would expect to be called is rejected by SFINAE. This behaviour is surprising, N4387 - Improving pair and tuple analyses and tries to improve the situation, by making the constructor explicit instead of rejecting it. N4387 has been voted into C++1z at the Lenexa meeting.
The following describes the C++11 rules.
The constructor I had expected to be called is described in [pairs.pair]/7-9
template<class U, class V> constexpr pair(U&& x, V&& y);
7 Requires: is_constructible<first_type, U&&>::value is true and
is_constructible<second_type, V&&>::value is true.
8 Effects: The
constructor initializes first with std::forward<U>(x) and second with
std::forward<V>(y).
9 Remarks: If U is not implicitly convertible to
first_type or V is not implicitly convertible to second_type this
constructor shall not participate in overload resolution.
Note the difference between is_constructible in the Requires section, and "is not implicitly convertible" in the Remarks section. The requirements are fulfilled to call this constructor, but it may not participate in overload resolution (= has to be rejected via SFINAE).
Therefore, overload resolution needs to select a "worse match", namely one whose second parameter is a A const&. A temporary is created from the int argument and bound to this reference, and the reference is used to initialize the pair data member (.second). The initialization tries to call the deleted copy ctor of A, and the construction of the pair is ill-formed.
libstdc++ has (as an extension) some nonstandard ctors. In the latest doxygen (and in 4.8.2), the constructor of pair that I had expected to be called (being surprised by the rules required by the Standard) is:
template<class _U1, class _U2,
class = typename enable_if<__and_<is_convertible<_U1, _T1>,
is_convertible<_U2, _T2>
>::value
>::type>
constexpr pair(_U1&& __x, _U2&& __y)
: first(std::forward<_U1>(__x)), second(std::forward<_U2>(__y)) { }
and the one that is actually called is the non-standard:
// DR 811.
template<class _U1,
class = typename enable_if<is_convertible<_U1, _T1>::value>::type>
constexpr pair(_U1&& __x, const _T2& __y)
: first(std::forward<_U1>(__x)), second(__y) { }
The program is ill-formed according to the Standard, it is not merely rejected by this non-standard ctor.
As a final remark, here's the specification of is_constructible and is_convertible.
is_constructible [meta.rel]/4
Given the following function prototype:
template <class T>
typename add_rvalue_reference<T>::type create();
the predicate condition for a template specialization is_constructible<T, Args...> shall be satisfied if and only if the following variable definition would be well-formed for some invented variable t:
T t(create<Args>()...);
[Note: These tokens are never interpreted as a function declaration. — end note] Access checking is performed as if in a context unrelated to T and any of the Args. Only the validity of the immediate context of the variable initialization is considered.
is_convertible [meta.unary.prop]/6:
Given the following function prototype:
template <class T>
typename add_rvalue_reference<T>::type create();
the predicate condition for a template specialization is_convertible<From, To> shall be satisfied if and
only if the return expression in the following code would be well-formed, including any implicit conversions
to the return type of the function:
To test() {
return create<From>();
}
[Note: This requirement gives well defined results for reference types, void types, array types, and function types. — end note] Access checking is performed as if in a context unrelated to To and From. Only
the validity of the immediate context of the expression of the return-statement (including conversions to
the return type) is considered.
For your type A,
A t(create<int>());
is well-formed; however
A test() {
return create<int>();
}
creates a temporary of type A and tries to move that into the return-value (copy-initialization). That selects the deleted ctor A(A&&) and is therefore ill-formed.
Given the following struct:
struct ABC
{
ABC(){cout << "ABC" << endl;}
~ABC() noexcept {cout << "~ABC" << endl;}
ABC(ABC const&) {cout << "copy" << endl;}
ABC(ABC&&) noexcept {cout << "move" << endl;}
ABC& operator=(ABC const&){cout << "copy=" << endl;}
ABC& operator=(ABC&&) noexcept {cout << "move=" << endl;}
};
The output of:
std::pair<std::string, ABC> myPair{{}, {}};
is:
ABC
copy
~ABC
~ABC
While the output of:
std::pair<std::string, ABC> myPair{{}, ABC{}};
is:
ABC
move
~ABC
~ABC
In attempting to understand the difference between the two I think I have identified that the first case is using copy-list-initialization, while the second one uses direct-list-initialization of an unnamed temporary (numbers 7 and 2, respectively, in here: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/list_initialization).
Searching for similar questions I've found this: Why does the standard differentiate between direct-list-initialization and copy-list-initialization? and this: Does copy list initialization invoke copy ctor conceptually?.
The answers in those questions discuss the fact that for copy-list-initialization, the use of an explicit constructor would render the code ill-formed. In fact, if I make ABC's default constructor explicit, my first example won't compile but that is (perhaps) a different matter.
So, the question is: Why is the temporary copied in the first case but moved in the second? What prevents it from being moved in the case of copy-list-initialization?
As a note, the following code:
std::pair<std::string, ABC> myPair = std::make_pair<string, ABC>({}, {});
Also results in a call to ABC's move constructor (and no copy constructor call), but different mechanisms may be involved.
You can try the code out (using gcc-4.9.2 in C++14 mode) at: https://ideone.com/Kc8xIn
In general, braced-init-lists like {} are not expressions and do not have a type. If you have a function template
template<typename T> void f(T);
and call f( {} ), no type will be deduced for T, and type deduction will fail.
On the other hand, ABC{} is a prvalue expression of type ABC (an "explicit type conversion in functional notation"). For a call like f( ABC{} ), the function template can deduce the type ABC from this expression.
In C++14, as well as in C++11, std::pair has the following constructors [pairs.pair]; T1 and T2 are the names of the template parameter of the std::pair class template:
pair(const pair&) = default;
pair(pair&&) = default;
constexpr pair();
constexpr pair(const T1& x, const T2& y);
template<class U, class V> constexpr pair(U&& x, V&& y);
template<class U, class V> constexpr pair(const pair<U, V>& p);
template<class U, class V> constexpr pair(pair<U, V>&& p);
template <class... Args1, class... Args2>
pair(piecewise_construct_t, tuple<Args1...>, tuple<Args2...>);
Note that there is a constructor
constexpr pair(const T1& x, const T2& y); // (C)
But no
constexpr pair(T1&& x, T2&& y);
instead, there is a perfectly forwarding
template<class U, class V> constexpr pair(U&& x, V&& y); // (P)
If you try to initialize a std::pair with two initializers where at least one of them is a braced-init-list, the constructor (P) is not viable since it cannot deduce its template arguments.
(C) is not a constructor template. Its parameter types T1 const& and T2 const& are fixed by the class template parameters. A reference to a constant type can be initialized from an empty braced-init-list. This creates a temporary object that is bound to the reference. As the type referred to is const, the (C) constructor will copy its arguments into the class' data members.
When you initialize a pair via std::pair<T,U>{ T{}, U{} }, the T{} and U{} are prvalue-expressions. The constructor template (P) can deduce their types and is viable. The instantiation produced after type deduction is a better match than the (C) constructor, because (P) will produce rvalue-reference parameters and bind the prvalue arguments to them. (C) on the other hand binds the prvalue arguments to lvalue-references.
Why then does the live example move the second argument when called via std::pair<T,U>{ {}, U{} }?
libstdc++ defines additional constructors. Below is an extract of its std::pair implementation from 78536ab78e, omitting function definitions, some comments, and SFINAE. _T1 and _T2 are the names of the template parameters of the std::pair class template.
_GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR pair();
_GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR pair(const _T1& __a, const _T2& __b); // (C)
template<class _U1, class _U2>
constexpr pair(const pair<_U1, _U2>& __p);
constexpr pair(const pair&) = default;
constexpr pair(pair&&) = default;
// DR 811.
template<class _U1>
constexpr pair(_U1&& __x, const _T2& __y); // (X)
template<class _U2>
constexpr pair(const _T1& __x, _U2&& __y); // (E) <=====================
template<class _U1, class _U2>
constexpr pair(_U1&& __x, _U2&& __y); // (P)
template<class _U1, class _U2>
constexpr pair(pair<_U1, _U2>&& __p);
template<typename... _Args1, typename... _Args2>
pair(piecewise_construct_t, tuple<_Args1...>, tuple<_Args2...>);
Note the (E) constructor template: It will copy the first argument and perfectly forward the second. For an initialization like std::pair<T,U>{ {}, U{} }, it is viable because it only needs to deduce a type from the second argument. It is also a better match than (C) for the second argument, and hence a better match overall.
The "DR 811" comment is in the libstdc++ sources. It refers to LWG DR 811 which adds some SFINAE, but no new constructors.
The constructors (E) and (X) are a libstdc++ extension. I'm not sure if it's compliant, though.
libc++ on the other hand does not have this additional constructors. For the example std::pair<T,U>{ {}, U{} }, it will copy the second argument.
Live demo with both library implementations