OK, so I'm all sold on the copy-and-swap idiom and I think I mostly know how to implement it.
However, or codebase uses MFC's CString class as string and this ain't gonna change.
Since swap must (should???) be nothrow, I cannot do
std::swap(this->my_cstring, rhs.my_cstring);
since that will create a temporary CString object which may throw. (Plus its inefficient.)
So where I'm left? Should I add a try-catch? Should I actually allow this (well, extremely rare) out of memory condition to raise an exception and make swap fail?
Looking at CStrings implementation, it doesn't seem there's a member or function that allows for swapping ...
Self-Answer:
After looking into CString more closely, it appears that due to the fact the CString is a reference counted string implementation, swapping it via std::swap is actually "99%" exception safe because all that happens is some reference count increments and decrements.
It's only "99%" safe, as when the CString object IsLocked, it will always do a copy.
Related
I recently started using posix threads and the choice of argument types in the standard made me curious. I haven't been able to asnwer the question of why does pthread_exit use void* instead of int for the returning status of the thread? (the same as exit does).
The only advantage I see is that it lets the programmers define the status how they want (e.g. return a pointer to a complex structure), but I doubt it is widely used like this.
It seems that in most cases this choice has more overhead because of necessary casting.
This isn't just for status, it's the return value of the thread. Using a pointer allows the thread to return a pointer to a dynamically-allocated array or structure.
You can't really compare it with the exit() parameter, because that's for sending status to the operating system. This is intentionally very simple to allow portability with many OSes.
The only advantage I see is that it lets the programmers define the status how they want (e.g. return a pointer to a complex structure), but I doubt it is widely used like this.
Indeed, that's the reason. And it's probably not used that widely (e.g. you can communicate values via other means such as a pointer passed to thread function, global var with synchronisation, etc). But if you were to have a it like void pthread_exit(int);, the it takes away the ability to return pointers. So void pthread_exit(void*); is a more flexible design.
It seems that in most cases this choice has more overhead because of necessary casting.
In most cases, it's not used at all as the common way is to return nothing i.e. pthread_exit(NULL);. So it only matters when returning pointers (to structs and such) and in those cases a conversion to void * isn't necessary as any pointer type can be converted to void * without an explicit cast.
Is there any typesafe way to create a string in D, using information only available at runtime, without allocating memory?
A simple example of what I might want to do:
void renderText(string text) { ... }
void renderScore(int score)
{
char[16] text;
int n = sprintf(text.ptr, "Score: %d", score);
renderText(text[0..n]); // ERROR
}
Using this, you'd get an error because the slice of text is not immutable, and is therefore not a string (i.e. immutable(char)[])
I can only think of three ways around this:
Cast the slice to a string. It works, but is ugly.
Allocate a new string using the slice. This works, but I'd rather not have to allocate memory.
Change renderText to take a const(char)[]. This works here, but (a) it's ugly, and (b) many functions in Phobos require string, so if I want to use those in the same manner then this doesn't work.
None of these are particularly nice. Am I missing something? How does everyone else get around this problem?
You have static array of char. You want to pass it to a function that takes immutable(char)[]. The only way to do that without any allocation is to cast. Think about it. What you want is one type to act like it's another. That's what casting does. You could choose to use assumeUnique to do it, since that does exactly the cast that you're looking for, but whether that really gains you anything is debatable. Its main purpose is to document that what you're doing by the cast is to make the value being cast be treated as immutable and that there are no other references to it. Looking at your example, that's essentially true, since it's the last thing in the function, but whether you want to do that in general is up to you. Given that it's a static array which risks memory problems if you screw up and you pass it to a function that allows a reference to it to leak, I'm not sure that assumeUnique is the best choice. But again, it's up to you.
Regardless, if you're doing a cast (be it explicitly or with assumeUnique), you need to be certain that the function that you're passing it to is not going to leak references to the data that you're passing to it. If it does, then you're asking for trouble.
The other solution, of course, is to change the function so that it takes const(char)[], but that still runs the risk of leaking references to the data that you're passing in. So, you still need to be certain of what the function is actually going to do. If it's pure, doesn't return const(char)[] (or anything that could contain a const(char)[]), and there's no way that it could leak through any of the function's other arguments, then you're safe, but if any of those aren't true, then you're going to have to be careful. So, ultimately, I believe that all that using const(char)[] instead of casting to string really buys you is that you don't have to cast. That's still better, since it avoids the risk of screwing up the cast (and it's just better in general to avoid casting when you can), but you still have all of the same things to worry about with regards to escaping references.
Of course, that also requires that you be able to change the function to have the signature that you want. If you can't do that, then you're going to have to cast. I believe that at this point, most of Phobos' string-based functions have been changed so that they're templated on the string type. So, this should be less of a problem now with Phobos than it used to be. Some functions (in particular, those in std.file), still need to be templatized, but ultimately, functions in Phobos that require string specifically should be fairly rare and will have a good reason for requiring it.
Ultimately however, the problem is that you're trying to treat a static array as if it were a dynamic array, and while D definitely lets you do that, you're taking a definite risk in doing so, and you need to be certain that the functions that you're using don't leak any references to the local data that you're passing to them.
Check out assumeUnique from std.exception Jonathan's answer.
No, you cannot create a string without allocation. Did you mean access? To avoid allocation, you have to either use slice or pointer to access a previously created string. Not sure about cast though, it may or may not allocate new memory space for the new string.
One way to get around this would be to copy the mutable chars into a new immutable version then slice that:
void renderScore(int score)
{
char[16] text;
int n = sprintf(text.ptr, "Score: %d", score);
immutable(char)[16] itext = text;
renderText(itext[0..n]);
}
However:
DMD currently doesn't allow this due to a bug.
You're creating an unnecessary copy (better than a GC allocation, but still not great).
I'm new to COM. What exactly is the advantage of replacing:
L"String"
with
CComBSTR(L"String")
I can see a changelist in the COM part of my .NET application where all strings are replaced in this way. Would like to know what is the need for this.
BSTR is not the same as WCHAR[]. BSTR values are prefixed with their length, as well as null-terminated.
If you're dealing with in-process objects that are written in C or C++, you'll usually get away with this, because the C/C++ code will probably assume that your BSTR is a null-terminated wide character string.
If, on the other hand, you're dealing with out-of-process/cross-machine objects, the proxy/stub marshalling code will assume that you really did pass a BSTR, and will expect to find a length field (it needs this to know how much data to marshal). This will go horribly wrong.
In short: if something expects a BSTR, call SysAllocString (or CComBSTR, or CString::AllocSysString).
You could just pass L"Something" into a COM method declared as expecting a BSTR but you should never do so.
The convention is that a BSTR is allocated using one of SysAllocString() family functions and anyone who receives a BSTR can (and should) call SysStringLen() whenever they want to find the string length. SysStringLen() relies on the BSTR being allocated with SysAllocString() family functions (since it uses extra data allocated and initialized by those functions) and if that requirement is violated the program will run into undefined behaviour.
Using SysAllocString() directly requires also calling SysFreeString() to free the string (otherwise memory is leaked) so it leads to lots of code and possibly to errors. The better way is just using a wrapper class such as CComBSTR or _bstr_t for managing the BSTRs - they will call SysAllocString()/SysFreeString() when necessary (unless you abuse them, of course).
Visual C++ 2008 C runtime offers an operator 'offsetof', which is actually macro defined as this:
#define offsetof(s,m) (size_t)&reinterpret_cast<const volatile char&>((((s *)0)->m))
This allows you to calculate the offset of the member variable m within the class s.
What I don't understand in this declaration is:
Why are we casting m to anything at all and then dereferencing it? Wouldn't this have worked just as well:
&(((s*)0)->m)
?
What's the reason for choosing char reference (char&) as the cast target?
Why use volatile? Is there a danger of the compiler optimizing the loading of m? If so, in what exact way could that happen?
An offset is in bytes. So to get a number expressed in bytes, you have to cast the addresses to char, because that is the same size as a byte (on this platform).
The use of volatile is perhaps a cautious step to ensure that no compiler optimisations (either that exist now or may be added in the future) will change the precise meaning of the cast.
Update:
If we look at the macro definition:
(size_t)&reinterpret_cast<const volatile char&>((((s *)0)->m))
With the cast-to-char removed it would be:
(size_t)&((((s *)0)->m))
In other words, get the address of member m in an object at address zero, which does look okay at first glance. So there must be some way that this would potentially cause a problem.
One thing that springs to mind is that the operator & may be overloaded on whatever type m happens to be. If so, this macro would be executing arbitrary code on an "artificial" object that is somewhere quite close to address zero. This would probably cause an access violation.
This kind of abuse may be outside the applicability of offsetof, which is supposed to only be used with POD types. Perhaps the idea is that it is better to return a junk value instead of crashing.
(Update 2: As Steve pointed out in the comments, there would be no similar problem with operator ->)
offsetof is something to be very careful with in C++. It's a relic from C. These days we are supposed to use member pointers. That said, I believe that member pointers to data members are overdesigned and broken - I actually prefer offsetof.
Even so, offsetof is full of nasty surprises.
First, for your specific questions, I suspect the real issue is that they've adapted relative to the traditional C macro (which I thought was mandated in the C++ standard). They probably use reinterpret_cast for "it's C++!" reasons (so why the (size_t) cast?), and a char& rather than a char* to try to simplify the expression a little.
Casting to char looks redundant in this form, but probably isn't. (size_t) is not equivalent to reinterpret_cast, and if you try to cast pointers to other types into integers, you run into problems. I don't think the compiler even allows it, but to be honest, I'm suffering memory failure ATM.
The fact that char is a single byte type has some relevance in the traditional form, but that may only be why the cast is correct again. To be honest, I seem to remember casting to void*, then char*.
Incidentally, having gone to the trouble of using C++-specific stuff, they really should be using std::ptrdiff_t for the final cast.
Anyway, coming back to the nasty surprises...
VC++ and GCC probably won't use that macro. IIRC, they have a compiler intrinsic, depending on options.
The reason is to do what offsetof is intended to do, rather than what the macro does, which is reliable in C but not in C++. To understand this, consider what would happen if your struct uses multiple or virtual inheritance. In the macro, when you dereference a null pointer, you end up trying to access a virtual table pointer that isn't there at address zero, meaning that your app probably crashes.
For this reason, some compilers have an intrinsic that just uses the specified structs layout instead of trying to deduce a run-time type. But the C++ standard doesn't mandate or even suggest this - it's only there for C compatibility reasons. And you still have to be careful if you're working with class heirarchies, because as soon as you use multiple or virtual inheritance, you cannot assume that the layout of the derived class matches the layout of the base class - you have to ensure that the offset is valid for the exact run-time type, not just a particular base.
If you're working on a data structure library, maybe using single inheritance for nodes, but apps cannot see or use your nodes directly, offsetof works well. But strictly speaking, even then, there's a gotcha. If your data structure is in a template, the nodes may have fields with types from template parameters (the contained data type). If that isn't POD, technically your structs aren't POD either. And all the standard demands for offsetof is that it works for POD. In practice, it will work - your type hasn't gained a virtual table or anything just because it has a non-POD member - but you have no guarantees.
If you know the exact run-time type when you dereference using a field offset, you should be OK even with multiple and virtual inheritance, but ONLY if the compiler provides an intrinsic implementation of offsetof to derive that offset in the first place. My advice - don't do it.
Why use inheritance in a data structure library? Well, how about...
class node_base { ... };
class leaf_node : public node_base { ... };
class branch_node : public node_base { ... };
The fields in the node_base are automatically shared (with identical layout) in both the leaf and branch, avoiding a common error in C with accidentally different node layouts.
BTW - offsetof is avoidable with this kind of stuff. Even if you are using offsetof for some jobs, node_base can still have virtual methods and therefore a virtual table, so long as it isn't needed to dereference member variables. Therefore, node_base can have pure virtual getters, setters and other methods. Normally, that's exactly what you should do. Using offsetof (or member pointers) is a complication, and should only be used as an optimisation if you know you need it. If your data structure is in a disk file, for instance, you definitely don't need it - a few virtual call overheads will be insignificant compared with the disk access overheads, so any optimisation efforts should go into minimising disk accesses.
Hmmm - went off on a bit of a tangent there. Whoops.
char is guarenteed to be the smallest number of bits the architectural can "bite" (aka byte).
All pointers are actually numbers, so cast adress 0 to that type because it's the beginning.
Take the address of member starting from 0 (resulting into 0 + location_of_m).
Cast that back to size_t.
1) I also do not know why it is done in this way.
2) The char type is special in two ways.
No other type has weaker alignment restrictions than the char type. This is important for reinterpret cast between pointers and between expression and reference.
It is also the only type (together with its unsigned variant) for which the specification defines behavior in case the char is used to access stored value of variables of different type. I do not know if this applies to this specific situation.
3) I think that the volatile modifier is used to ensure that no compiler optimization will result in attempt to read the memory.
2 . What's the reason for choosing char reference (char&) as the cast target?
if type s has operator& overloaded then we can't get address using &s
so we reinterpret_cast the type s to primitive type char because primitive type char
doesn't have operator& overloaded
now we can get address from that
if in C then reinterpret_cast is not required
3 . Why use volatile? Is there a danger of the compiler optimizing the loading of m? If so, in what exact way could that happen?
here volatile is not relevant to compiler optimizing.
if type s have const or volatile or both qualifier(s) then
reinterpret_cast can't cast to char& because reinterpret_cast can't remove cv-qualifiers
so result is using <const volatile char&> for casting work from any combination
I recently took in a small MCF C++ application, which is obviously in a working state. To get started I'm running PC-Lint over the code, and lint is complaining that CStringT's are being passed to Format. Opinion on the internet seems to be divided. Some say that CSting is designed to handle this use case without error, but others (and an MSDN article) say that it should always be cast when passed to a variable argument function. Can Stackoverflow come to any consensus on the issue?
CString has been carefully designed to be passed as part of a variable argument list, so it is safe to use it that way. And you can be fairly sure that Microsoft will take care not to break this particular behavior. So I'd say you are safe to continue using it that way, if you want to.
That said, personally I'd prefer the cast. It is not common behavior that string classes behave that way (e.g. std::string does not) and for mental consistency it may be better to just do it the "safe" way.
P.S.: See this thread for implementation details and further notes on how to cast.