I came across codebase, where "moving ownership" through move semantic is used very frequently to deallocate resources. Example:
void process_and_free(Foo&& arg) {
auto local_arg = std::move(arg);
... // Use local_arg
}
void caller() {
Foo foo;
process_and_free(std::move(foo));
...
}
If there are some movable/dynamic resources in Foo after calling process_and_free, they will be deallocated (they will be moved to local_arg, which runs out of scope inside process_and_free). So far so good...
However, I was wondering what happens, if local_arg is not created:
void process(Foo&& arg) {
... // Use arg everywhere
}
Will the resources in Foo be deallocated in this case as well?
Second question: do you think, is it a good SWE style to use processing methods to deallocate dynamic resources of the passed argument? I was reading that the move semantics does not guarantee moving of dynamic resources: supposedly they can be moved but don't have to. Hence, IMHO it may be ambiguous in which state foo is after process_and_free call...
I think for code reader/reviewer it may be more obvious, if the resources are deallocated inside the caller:
void caller() {
{
Foo foo;
process_and_free(foo);
}
...
}
Answering both questions:
Without creating the local_arg variable, the resources will not be moved, i.e. the Foo&& arg argument does not take ownership of the resources during process(std::move(foo)) call.
Because the resources are not moved in the second example, IMHO it looks to me as a bad and confusing coding style. The reason is that looking only at the call process(std::move(foo)), the reader doesn't know what happens with foo without reviewing also process (btw. if process is a member method, it can be const with the same effect):
void process(Foo&& arg) const {
auto local_arg = std::move(arg);
...
}
Related
I am writing multi-threaded server that handles async read from many tcp sockets. Here is the section of code that bothers me.
void data_recv (void) {
socket.async_read_some (
boost::asio::buffer(rawDataW, size_t(648*2)),
boost::bind ( &RPC::on_data_recv, this,
boost::asio::placeholders::error,
boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred));
} // RPC::data_recvW
void on_data_recv (boost::system::error_code ec, std::size_t bytesRx) {
if ( rawDataW[bytesRx-1] == ENDMARKER { // <-- this code is fine
process_and_write_rawdata_to_file
}
else {
read_socket_until_endmarker // <-- HELP REQUIRED!!
process_and_write_rawadata_to_file
}
}
Nearly always the async_read_some reads in data including the endmarker, so it works fine. Rarely, the endmarker's arrival is delayed in the stream and that's when my program fails. I think it fails because I have not understood how boost bind works.
My first question:
I am confused with this boost totorial example , in which "this" does not appear in the handler declaration. ( Please see code of start_accept() in the example.) How does this work? Does compiler ignore the "this" ?
my second question:
In the on_data_recv() method, how do I read data from the same socket that was read in the on_data() method? In other words, how do I pass the socket as argument from calling method to the handler? when the handler is executed in another thread? Any help in form of a few lines of code that can fit into my "read_socket_until_endmarker" will be appreciated.
My first question: I am confused with this boost totorial example , in which "this" does not appear in the handler declaration. ( Please see code of start_accept() in the example.) How does this work? Does compiler ignore the "this" ?
In the example (and I'm assuming this holds for your functions as well) the start_accept() is a member function. The bind function is conveniently designed such that when you use & in front of its first argument, it interprets it as a member function that is applied to its second argument.
So while a code like this:
void foo(int x) { ... }
bind(foo, 3)();
Is equivalent to just calling foo(3)
Code like this:
struct Bar { void foo(int x); }
Bar bar;
bind(&foo, &bar, 3)(); // <--- notice the & before foo
Would be equivalent to calling bar.foo(3).
And thus as per your example
boost::bind ( &RPC::on_data_recv, this, // <--- notice & again
boost::asio::placeholders::error,
boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred)
When this object is invoked inside Asio it shall be equivalent to calling this->on_data_recv(error, size). Checkout this link for more info.
For the second part, it is not clear to me how you're working with multiple threads, do you run io_service.run() from more than one thread (possible but I think is beyond your experience level)? It might be the case that you're confusing async IO with multithreading. I'm gonna assume that is the case and if you correct me I'll change my answer.
The usual and preferred starting point is to have just one thread running the io_service.run() function. Don't worry, this will allow you to handle many sockets asynchronously.
If that is the case, your two functions could easily be modified as such:
void data_recv (size_t startPos = 0) {
socket.async_read_some (
boost::asio::buffer(rawDataW, size_t(648*2)) + startPos,
boost::bind ( &RPC::on_data_recv, this,
startPos,
boost::asio::placeholders::error,
boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred));
} // RPC::data_recvW
void on_data_recv (size_t startPos,
boost::system::error_code ec,
std::size_t bytesRx) {
// TODO: Check ec
if (rawDataW[startPos + bytesRx-1] == ENDMARKER) {
process_and_write_rawdata_to_file
}
else {
// TODO: Error if startPos + bytesRx == 648*2
data_recv(startPos + bytesRx);
}
}
Notice though that the above code still has problems, the main one being that if the other side sent two messages quickly one after another, we could receive (in one async_read_some call) the full first message + part of the second message, and thus missing the ENDMARKER from the first one. Thus it is not enough to only test whether the last received byte is == to the ENDMARKER.
I could go on and modify this function further (I think you might get the idea on how), but you'd be better off using async_read_until which is meant exactly for this purpose.
If I define structs at the module level, I can reference not-yet defined structs.
struct S {
ComesLater c;
}
struct ComesLater {}
But If I do the same inside an unittest or a function block, it doesn't work:
unittest {
struct S {
ComesLater c;
}
struct ComesLater {}
}
Error: undefined identifier 'ComesLater'
Why is that? How can I get order-independent declarations inside functions? Is there some kind of forward-declaration in d? I need this because I generate structs using mixin and ordering the declarations in the order of their inner-dependencies would be quite some effort, sometimes impossible, if there are circularly referencing structs. (using pointers.)
Declarations inside functions, unittests, or anywhere else that statements can actually be executed are indeed order-dependent because their values may depend on the code before them running. Think of a local variable:
int a;
writeln(a);
a = b;
int b = get_user_line();
If order wasn't important there, when would the two functions get called? Would the user be asked for a line before the writeln as the declarations are rewritten?
The current behavior of making b an undefined variable error keeps it simple and straightforward.
It works independent of order in other contexts because there is no executable code that it can depend on, so there's no behavior that can change if the compiler needs to internally think about it differently.
So:
How can I get order-independent declarations inside functions?
Change the context such that there is no executable code... put it all inside another struct!
void main() { // or unittest { }
struct Holder {
static struct S {
C c;
}
static struct C {}
}
}
Since execution happens around the holder and doesn't happen inside it, the order of declaration inside doesn't matter again. Since you can define almost anything inside a struct, you can use this for variables, functions, other structs, and so on. Basically all you have to do is wrap your existing code inside the struct Holder {} brackets.
By making everything static inside, you can just use it like a container and reference the stuff with Holder.S, etc., on the outside.
Consider an operation with a standard asynchronous interface:
std::future<void> op();
Internally, op needs to perform a (variable) number of asynchronous operations to complete; the number of these operations is finite but unbounded, and depends on the results of the previous asynchronous operations.
Here's a (bad) attempt:
/* An object of this class will store the shared execution state in the members;
* the asynchronous op is its member. */
class shared
{
private:
// shared state
private:
// Actually does some operation (asynchronously).
void do_op()
{
...
// Might need to launch more ops.
if(...)
launch_next_ops();
}
public:
// Launches next ops
void launch_next_ops()
{
...
std::async(&shared::do_op, this);
}
}
std::future<void> op()
{
shared s;
s.launch_next_ops();
// Return some future of s used for the entire operation.
...
// s destructed - delayed BOOM!
};
The problem, of course, is that s goes out of scope, so later methods will not work.
To amend this, here are the changes:
class shared : public std::enable_shared_from_this<shared>
{
private:
/* The member now takes a shared pointer to itself; hopefully
* this will keep it alive. */
void do_op(std::shared_ptr<shared> p); // [*]
void launch_next_ops()
{
...
std::async(&shared::do_op, this, shared_from_this());
}
}
std::future<void> op()
{
std::shared_ptr<shared> s{new shared{}};
s->launch_next_ops();
...
};
(Asides from the weirdness of an object calling its method with a shared pointer to itself, )the problem is with the line marked [*]. The compiler (correctly) warns that it's an unused variable.
Of course, it's possible to fool it somehow, but is this an indication of a fundamental problem? Is there any chance the compiler will optimize away the argument and leave the method with a dead object? Is there a better alternative to this entire scheme? I don't find the resulting code the most intuitive.
No, the compiler will not optimize away the argument. Indeed, that's irrelevant as the lifetime extension comes from shared_from_this() being bound by decay-copy ([thread.decaycopy]) into the result of the call to std::async ([futures.async]/3).
If you want to avoid the warning of an unused argument, just leave it unnamed; compilers that warn on unused arguments will not warn on unused unnamed arguments.
An alternative is to make do_op static, meaning that you have to use its shared_ptr argument; this also addresses the duplication between this and shared_from_this. Since this is fairly cumbersome, you might want to use a lambda to convert shared_from_this to a this pointer:
std::async([](std::shared_ptr<shared> const& self){ self->do_op(); }, shared_from_this());
If you can use C++14 init-captures this becomes even simpler:
std::async([self = shared_from_this()]{ self->do_op(); });
I used the below to see how dart calls methods passed in to other methods to see what context the passed in method would/can be called under.
void main() {
var one = new IDable(1);
var two = new IDable(2);
print('one ${caller(one.getMyId)}'); //one 1
print('two ${caller(two.getMyId)}'); //two 2
print('one ${callerJustForThree(one.getMyId)}'); //NoSuchMethod Exception
}
class IDable{
int id;
IDable(this.id);
int getMyId(){
return id;
}
}
caller(fn){
return fn();
}
callerJustForThree(fn){
var three = new IDable(3);
three.fn();
}
So how does caller manager to call its argument fn without a context i.e. one.fn(), and why does callerJustForThree fail to call a passed in fn on an object which has that function defined for it?
In Dart there is a difference between an instance-method, declared as part of a class, and other functions (like closures and static functions).
Instance methods are the only ones (except for constructors) that can access this. Conceptually they are part of the class description and not the object. That is, when you do a method call o.foo() Dart first extracts the class-type of o. Then it searches for foo in the class description (recursively going through the super classes, if necessary). Finally it applies the found method with this set to o.
In addition to being able to invoke methods on objects (o.foo()) it is also possible to get a bound closure: o.foo (without the parenthesis for the invocation). However, and this is crucial, this form is just syntactic sugar for (<args>) => o.foo(<args>). That is, this just creates a fresh closure that captures o and redirects calls to it to the instance method.
This whole setup has several important consequences:
You can tear off instance methods and get a bound closure. The result of o.foo is automatically bound to o. No need to bind it yourself (but also no way to bind it to a different instance). This is way, in your example, one.getMyId works. You are actually getting the following closure: () => one.getMyId() instead.
It is not possible to add or remove methods to objects. You would need to change the class description and this is something that is (intentionally) not supported.
var f = o.foo; implies that you get a fresh closure all the time. This means that you cannot use this bound closure as a key in a hashtable. For example, register(o.foo) followed by unregister(o.foo) will most likely not work, because each o.foo will be different. You can easily see this by trying print(o.foo == o.foo).
You cannot transfer methods from one object to another. However you try to access instance methods, they will always be bound.
Looking at your examples:
print('one ${caller(one.getMyId)}'); //one 1
print('two ${caller(two.getMyId)}'); //two 2
print('one ${callerJustForThree(one.getMyId)}'); //NoSuchMethod Exception
These lines are equivalent to:
print('one ${caller(() => one.getMyId())}');
print('two ${caller(() => two.getMyId())}');
print('one ${callerJustForThree(() => one.getMyId())}';
Inside callerJustForThree:
callerJustForThree(fn){
var three = new IDable(3);
three.fn();
}
The given argument fn is completely ignored. When doing three.fn() in the last line Dart will find the class description of three (which is IDable) and then search for fn in it. Since it doesn't find one it will call the noSuchMethod fallback. The fn argument is ignored.
If you want to call an instance member depending on some argument you could rewrite the last example as follows:
main() {
...
callerJustForThree((o) => o.getMyId());
}
callerJustForThree(invokeIDableMember){
var three = new IDable(3);
invokeIDableMember(three);
}
I'll try to explain, which is not necessarily a strength of mine. If something I wrote isn't understandable, feel free to give me a shout.
Think of methods as normal objects, like every other variable, too.
When you call caller(one.getMyId), you aren't really passing a reference to the method of the class definition - you pass the method "object" specific for instance one.
In callerJustForThree, you pass the same method "object" of instance one. But you don't call it. Instead of calling the object fn in the scope if your method, you are calling the object fn of the instance three, which doesn't exist, because you didn't define it in the class.
Consider this code, using normal variables:
void main() {
var one = new IDable(1);
var two = new IDable(2);
caller(one.id);
caller(two.id);
callerJustForThree(one.id);
}
class IDable{
int id;
IDable(this.id);
}
caller(param){
print(param);
}
callerJustForThree(param){
var three = new IDable(3);
print(three.id); // This works
print(param); // This works, too
print(three.param); // But why should this work?
}
It's exactly the same concept. Think of your callbacks as normal variables, and everything makes sense. At least I hope so, if I explained it good enough.
Using C# 4.0 features I want a generic wrapper for encapsulating functions and add a TimeOut parameter to them.
For example we have a function like:
T DoLengthyOperation()
Using Func we have:
Func<T>
This is good and call the function even Sync (Invloke) or Async(BeginInvoke).
Now think of a TimeOut to be added to this behavior and if DoLengthyOperation() returns in specified time we have true returned, otherwise false.
Something like:
FuncTimeOut<in T1, in T2, ..., out TResult, int timeOut, bool result>
Implement C# Generic Timeout
Don't return true/false for complete. Throw an exception.
I don't have time to implement it, but it should be possible and your basic signature would look like this:
T DoLengthyOperation<T>(int TimeoutInMilliseconds, Func<T> operation)
And you could call this method either by passing in the name of any Func<T> as an argument or define it place as a lambda expression. Unfortunately, you'll also need to provide an overload for different kind of function you want, as there's currently no way to specify a variable number a generic type arguments.
Instead of mixing out and bool I would instead construct a separate type to capture the return. For example
struct Result<T> {
private bool _isSuccess;
private T _value;
public bool IsSucces { get { return _success; } }
public T Value { get { return _value; } }
public Result(T value) {
_value = value;
_isSuccess = true;
}
}
This is definitely possible to write. The only problem is that in order to implement a timeout, it's necessary to do one of the following
Move the long running operation onto another thread.
Add cancellation support to the long running operation and signal cancellation from another thread.
Ingrain the notion of timeout into the operation itself and have it check for the time being expired at many points in the operation.
Which is best for you is hard to determine because we don't know enough about your scenario. My instinct though would be to go for #2 or #3. Having the primary code not have to switch threads is likely the least impactful change to your code.