I have a static array in a class and an enum for the index of such array.
enum MyEnum
{
FIRST = 0,
SECOND,
LAST
}
class MyClass
{
public:
static string names[LAST];
}
I'd like to initialize my static array to associate a value of the array to each enum type like this:
names[FIRST] = "First";
names[SECOND] = "Second";
I know that I can initialize the array upon declaration like this static string names[] = {"First", "Second"}, but I want to explicitly assign the value to the corresponding enum to avoid errors.
In Java, there's a static block where you can do this kind of initialization, but I don't think that this is the case in C++. Is there an elegant way of doing this? I can't use std on my project, so the solution has to avoid any library usage.
Thanks in advance.
Write a function to initialize it. Function can't return an array - if you want to use an array, return a whole object that has an array inside it. Or you can return something dynamically allocated, a map or a vector.
#include <array>
#include <string>
enum MyEnum {
FIRST = 0,
SECOND,
LAST
};
std::array<std::string, LAST> construct_names() {
std::array<std::string, LAST> r;
r[FIRST] = "first";
r[SECOND] = "second";
return r;
}
static auto names = construct_names();
I can't use std on my project, so the solution has to avoid any library usage.
Roll your own types.
enum MyEnum {
FIRST = 0,
SECOND,
LAST
};
template<typename T, unsigned N>
struct MyArray {
T data[N];
T &operator[](unsigned i) {
return data[i];
}
};
MyArray<const char *, LAST> construct_names() {
MyArray<const char *, LAST> r;
r[FIRST] = "first";
r[SECOND] = "second";
return r;
}
static auto names = construct_names();
You may also want to read How to initialize private static members in C++? or similar, as for class initialization you need to do like, there will be some type repetition:
class MyClass {
public:
static MyArray<const char *, LAST> names;
};
MyArray<const char *, LAST> MyClass::names = construct_names();
Yes you can do it in simple way using __attribute__((init_priority(101))) and __attribute__((constructor(102)))
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
enum MyEnum
{
FIRST = 0,
SECOND,
LAST
};
class MyClass
{
public:
static string names[LAST];
};
__attribute__((init_priority(101))) string MyClass::names[LAST];
__attribute__((constructor(102))) void foo()
{
MyClass::names[FIRST] = "First";
MyClass::names[SECOND] = "Second";
}
int main()
{
MyClass m;
for (int i = 0; i < LAST; i++) {
cout << m.names[i] << "\n";
}
}
Output:
First
Second
Explanation in simple:
Before even code loads, first it initialize string MyClass::names[LAST]; because we added __attribute__((init_priority(101))) then it calls foo() automatically, The function name can be any it does not matter, it can be init as well no need to be foo. The order of initialization is based on number 101 and 102. If we change the order then it wont work.
For more info refer: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C_002b_002b-Attributes.html#index-init_005fpriority-variable-attribute
Declaimer: This initialization is not bound to the class, if you keep on adding like this for all the classes then you are in big trouble and you need to keep on maintain a list of orders. This inits are for the entire binary or library
Related
template <typename StoredT>
class InternalObject {
public:
using RefCountT = unsigned short;
template <typename... CtorTs>
static void* emplace(CtorTs&&...);
Types type;
RefCountT reference_count;
bool is_immovable;
StoredT stored_value;
InternalObject();
InternalObject(StoredT);
~InternalObject();
};
My class has a member StoredT stored_value which I would like to be able to construct using emplace and return a void* to it.
However, if I want to do this, I would have to do InternalObject<StoredT> *io_ptr = new InternalObject<StoredT>; which would force me to default-construct stored_value.
The solution I attempted was to allocate the appropriate amount of space as an array of unsigned char (the returned pointer is a heap pointer). Then, I tried to increment the pointer by appropriate amounts and modify the value there.
A more reproducible & complete example which does not produce a valid (non-POD) value for two.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
struct S {
int one;
std::vector<int> two;
};
int main() {
unsigned char *s_ptr = new unsigned char[sizeof(S)];
S *s = reinterpret_cast<S*>(s_ptr);
*s_ptr = 100; // Fine
std::vector<int> *vec_ptr = reinterpret_cast<std::vector<int>*>(s_ptr + sizeof(int));
*vec_ptr = {5,6,7};
std::cout << s->two.capacity() << "\n"; // big ol' number
return 0;
}
Consider using std::optional<StoredT>, which will allow you to defer the construction of the StoredT that you want to hold:
#include <optional>
template <typename StoredT>
class InternalObject {
public:
using RefCountT = unsigned short;
template <typename... CtorTs>
void emplace(CtorTs&&... args) {
stored_value.emplace(args...);
}
Types type;
RefCountT reference_count;
bool is_immovable;
std::optional<StoredT> stored_value;
InternalObject();
InternalObject(StoredT);
~InternalObject();
};
Trying to understand the proper way to copy values into an class member array. Currently, I take each value of the array and copy them into the corresponding element of the member array:
struct IPAddress
{
IPAddress(const unsigned char values[4]) :
values{values[0], values[1], values[2], values[3]}
{
}
const unsigned char values[4];
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
unsigned char values[] = {10, 0, 0, 1};
IPAddress address(values);
return 0;
}
This works, but is there a way to "automagically" copy all the values in the constructor? I mean, what would I do if the values were of a class had 100 elements instead of 4? Or 1000?
I'm aware that I should be using std::array. But since this code is built for a microcontroller, using std library is not really an option.
Any takers?
You should be using std::array. This is one part of the standard library that shouldn't be offensive to embedded programming.
If you don't have access to it, it's not hard to implement a class just like it. It's a straight forward aggregate with saner semantics than raw arrays. It's also likely to be reused, which makes it a good candidate for a utility you should implement.
Failing that, you can rely on delegating c'tors, which I only add here for the intellectual exercise:
struct IPAddress
{
IPAddress(const unsigned char values[4])
: IPAddress(values, std::make_index_sequence<4>{})
{
}
const unsigned char values[4];
private:
template<std::size_t... I>
IPAddress(const unsigned char values[4], std::index_sequence<I...>)
: values{values[I]...}
{
}
};
The key is in the pack expansion values{values[I]...}, which turns into an initializer not unlike your original one. See it live.
I'm aware that I should be using std::array. But since this code is built for a microcontroller, using std library is not really an option.
If you don't want to include array, you can still implement your own type for solving your issue:
template<typename T, std::size_t N>
class values_t {
public:
values_t(const T *ptr) {
// copy N elements
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < N; ++i)
value[i] = ptr[i]; // copy element
}
T& operator[](int i) { return value[i]; }
const T& operator[](int i) const { return value[i]; }
private:
typename std::remove_const<T>::type value[N];
};
Then, initializing the values data member of IPAddress becomes much simpler:
struct IPAddress
{
IPAddress(const unsigned char values[4]) :
values{values} {} // <-- copy as a whole
values_t<const unsigned char, 4> values;
};
Not to sure how to name this question because the problem itself is looking for a construct of which I don´t know its name.
The problem is I am dealing with programs whose control flow depends greatly of data.
For example I created a MIPS simulator which implemented a list of more than 50 instructions, each implemented on its own and everything governed by a huge switch case
switch (function){ //Function is an int, each function (eg SLL) is
case 0: //associated with one
if (state->debug_level > 0){
fprintf(state->debug_out, "SLL\n");
}
step_err = SLL(state, rs, rt, rd, sa);
break;
case 2:
if (state->debug_level > 0){
fprintf(state->debug_out, "SRL\n");
}
step_err = SRL(state, rs, rt, rd, sa);
break;
case 3:
if (state->debug_level > 0){
fprintf(state->debug_out, "SRA\n");
}
//
I have been told that this could have been implemented using function pointers, but to do so what I am looking for is a way of relating data of any kind, say a string to other data, say an integer. I am aware of maps but wouldn't want to push back each pair. I am looking for some sort of array like syntax I think if seen before which might look something similar to this:
¿type? function_codes[]{
0, "SLL";
2, "SRL";
3, "SRA";
...
}
I am not looking for a solution to this problem but a generic approach to introducing quick relationships between data and using this to modify control flow.
EDIT AFTER ANSWERS
What I was actually looking for but I didnt know was indeed maps but in particular its initialization syntax similar to an array (see accepted answer). This used with function pointers did the required job.
As you guessed, function pointers are in fact a good way to do this. Since you specify that you don't want to use a Map, this is how you would implement your integer-based function dispatch using an array of function pointers. Note that since I don't know the type signature of your MIPS functions (SLL, SRL, etc.) I've used dummy placeholder type names.
typedef ret_t (*mips_func)(arg1_t, arg2_t, arg3_t, arg4_t, arg5_t);
mips_func function_codes[] = {
&SLL,
&SRL,
&SRA,
...
};
//...Later, in the part of your code that used to contain the big switch statement
step_err = (*function_codes[function])(state, rs, rt, rd, sa);
The syntax &SLL gets a pointer to the function SLL, which I assume is already in scope because you can call it directly from your switch statement.
Note that this assumes the numeric codes for the functions are a continuous sequence of integers from 0 to [max code value]. If some numeric codes are unused, then you will either need to leave explicit gaps in your array (by placing a NULL pointer in one or more entries) or use std::map<int, mips_func> so that you can use arbitrary non-continuous integer values as keys to functions. Fortunately, using a Map still doesn't require push_backing each element, since C++ now has initializer lists. The same code using a Map would look like this:
typedef ret_t (*mips_func)(arg1_t, arg2_t, arg3_t, arg4_t, arg5_t);
std::map<int, mips_func> function_codes = {
{0, &SLL},
{2, &SRL},
{4, &SRA},
...
};
//Using the Map looks exactly the same, due to its overloaded operator[]
step_err = (*function_codes[function])(state, rs, rt, rd, sa);
For simplify you can use associative containers. If the order is important then use std::map, or std::unordered_map in the other case.
And you can use syntax similar to the desired
std::map<size_t, std::string> codes_map = decltype(codes_map) {
{ 0, "val1" },
{ 1, "val2" }
};
You could group the data as static members w/ the same name across structs, then use templates to access them generically:
struct A { auto call() const { return "((1))"; }; static const char * name; };
struct B { auto call() const { return "{{2}}"; }; static const char * name; };
struct C { auto call() const { return "<<3>>"; }; static const char * name; };
// n.b. these `T...` have: `sizeof(T) == ... == sizeof(empty_struct)`
const char * A::name = "A";
const char * B::name = "B";
const char * C::name = "C";
boost::variant (and the soon to be implemented std::variant) implements a type-safe union, which provides a very clean and efficient way of using these structs as values:
#include <cstdio>
#include <vector>
#include <boost/variant.hpp>
int main()
{
std::vector<boost::variant<A, B, C>> letters{A{}, B{}, C{}, B{}, A{}};
auto visitor = [](auto x) { std::printf("%s(): %s\n", x.name, x.call()); };
for (auto var : letters) { boost::apply_visitor(visitor, var); }
}
Demo
It seems like you have two problems: the flow-control issue (dispatch) and the map issue (an implementation note). I get that the program flow is nonstatic and unknowable at compile-time… but so is the map static? For static maps I get a lot of mileage out of using a traits-ish approach to create a compile-time mapping. Here’s a quick example mapping file suffixes to Objective-C enum constants:
namespace objc {
namespace image {
template <std::size_t N> inline
constexpr std::size_t static_strlen(char const (&)[N]) { return N; }
template <NSBitmapImageFileType t>
struct suffix_t;
#define DEFINE_SUFFIX(endstring, nstype) \
template <> \
struct suffix_t<nstype> { \
static constexpr std::size_t N = static_strlen(endstring); \
static constexpr char const str[N] = endstring; \
static constexpr NSBitmapImageFileType type = nstype; \
};
DEFINE_SUFFIX("tiff", NSTIFFFileType);
DEFINE_SUFFIX("bmp", NSBMPFileType);
DEFINE_SUFFIX("gif", NSGIFFileType);
DEFINE_SUFFIX("jpg", NSJPEGFileType);
DEFINE_SUFFIX("png", NSPNGFileType);
DEFINE_SUFFIX("jp2", NSJPEG2000FileType);
template <NSBitmapImageFileType nstype>
char const* suffix_value = suffix_t<nstype>::str;
}
}
… see how that works? the nice part is that using it has no runtime overhead, which if your map is static, you can use something like that.
For dynamic flow-control and dispatch, function pointers work; that is what happens automatically if you use polymorphic classes and virtual functions but it seems like you have an architecture in place already that may not be amenable to being redone with such high-modernist architectural notions. I like c++11 lambdas as they solve like 90% of my problems in this arena. Perhaps you can elablrate (I will amend my answer)!
If you only have a small number of indices to support, from 0 to 50, you'll get the best performance if you put your function pointers in an array and not a map.
The syntax is also short:
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
static void f0() {
std::cout << "f0\n";
}
static void f1() {
std::cout << "f1\n";
}
void main()
{
std::function<void()> f[2] = { f0, f1 };
f[0](); // prints "f0"
f[1](); // prints "f1"
}
Or, if you prefer classes over functions:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
class myfunc {
public:
virtual void run() abstract;
virtual ~myfunc() {}
};
class f0 : public myfunc {
public:
virtual void run() {
std::cout << "f0\n";
}
};
class f1 : public myfunc {
public:
virtual void run() {
std::cout << "f1\n";
}
};
void main()
{
myfunc* f[2] = { new f0(), new f1() };
f[0]->run(); // prints "f0"
f[1]->run(); // prints "f1"
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(f) / sizeof(f[0]); ++i)
delete f[i];
}
Given some definitions
#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
#include <algorithm>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <map>
using namespace std;
struct state{
int debug_level = 1;
const char* debug_out = "%s";
} s;
// some functions to call
void SLL(state& s, int, int, int, int){
cout << "SLL";
}
void SLR(state& s, int, int, int, int){
cout << "SLR";
}
void SLT(state& s, int, int, int, int){
cout << "SLT";
}
You can use a Map
auto mappedname2fn = map<string, delctype(SLL)*>{
{"SLL", SLL},
{"SLR", SLR}
};
// call a map function
mappedname2fn["SLR"](s, 1, 2, 3, 4);
If you don't want a map you can use a pre-sorted array for a binary search
Here's a binary search of an array of name, function pairs
template<typename P, int N, typename ...T>
auto callFn(P(&a)[N], string val, T&&... params){
auto it = lower_bound(a, a+N, make_pair(val, nullptr),
[](auto& p1, auto& p2){return p1.first < p2.first;});
if(it==(a+N) || val<it->first) throw logic_error("not found");
return it->second(forward<T>(params)...);
}
So you can set up an array and use that:-
// array sorted in alphabetical order for binary search to work
pair<string, decltype(SLL)*> name2fn[] = {
{"SLL", SLL},
{"SLR", SLR},
{"SLT", SLT}
};
void callFn(string name, state& s, int a, int b, int c, int d){
try{
callFn(name2fn, name, s, a, b, c, d);
}
catch(exception& e){
cout << e.what();
}
}
// call it
callFn("SLL", s, 1, 2, 3, 4);
I have a class called CoolMenuItems
class CoolMenuItems
{
public:
CoolMenuItems();
~CoolMenuItems();
struct MenuItemOne
{
int id;
uint32 type;
uint32 subtype;
String name;
};
struct MenuItemTwo
{
uint32 subtype;
String name;
};
}
This is just the bare bones of the class... I want to have two arrays, one of MenuItemOne, and one of MenuItemTwo, and these arrays would have the following. These arrays I want to initialize like:
MenuItemOne a[] =
{
{1, EQData::EQ_EFFECT_TYPE_PARAMETRIC, 0, T("Parametric")},
{2, EQData::EQ_EFFECT_TYPE_FILTER_LOW_PASS, EQData::EQ_FILTER_TYPE_FILTER_BUTTERWORTH_12DB, T("Low Pass")},
};
MenuItemTwo b[] =
{
{EQData::EQ_FILTER_TYPE_TRHU, T("Thru")},
{EQData::EQ_FILTER_TYPE_BUTTERWORTH_6DB, T("6 dB Butterworth")},
};
only, with more elements than just two...
I want to set it up so that I can create a new CoolMenuItems object with
CoolMenuItems *cmi = new CoolMenuItems();
so that I can access those array elements via
cmi->a[1];
Can you modify your code like this
class CoolMenuItems
{
public:
CoolMenuItems();
~CoolMenuItems();
struct MenuItemOne
{
int id;
uint32 type;
uint32 subtype;
String name;
};
struct MenuItemTwo
{
uint32 subtype;
String name;
};
std::vector<MenuItemOne> menuItemOne;
std::vector<MenuItemTwo> menuItemTwo;
}
So that you can initialize the elements of struct and push_back the struct into the std::vector, all the memory to be allocated and to be freed will be taken care of by the std::vector
MenuItemOne a = {1, EQData::EQ_EFFECT_TYPE_PARAMETRIC, 0,T("Parametric")};
menuItemOne.push_back(a);
Similarly for MenuItemTwo.
If you have a different requirement then please give more details.
Initialization of member variables are somewhat tricky in C++, so my recommendation would be something like the following:
MenuItemOne& ret_a(int i)
{
static MenuItemOne a[] =
{
// definition of a[]
};
return a[i]; // maybe with some bounds checking
}
Note that this has some advantages. First, declaring the array a as static inside a class method makes it globally defined just once. Second, you hide the actual a[] array behind a method call, which is a better design practice.
EDIT
As the arrays cannot be static, as the values depend on some other library, the values have to be set up at some point, say the CoolMenuItems constructor:
CoolMenuItems::CoolMenuItems()
{
for (int i = 0; i < A_ITEMS; ++i)
{
a[i].id = X;
a[i].name = T("xxx");
}
// ...
}
or, if you have to put the values by hand:
CoolMenuItems::CoolMenuItems()
{
a[0].id = X;
a[0].name = T("xxx");
a[1].id = ...
// ...
}
This is tedious, but can be automated with some editor usage, or preprocessor. Note also that you then have to declare the ret_a function similarly and declare the corresponding a and b arrays within the class:
MenuItemOne a[A_ITEMS];
MenuItemTwo b[B_ITEMS];
With enough time, I'd give you a nice elisp macro to be used within emacs to generate all the initializations from the C arrays you wrote :)
I have the following class in C++:
class a {
const int b[2];
// other stuff follows
// and here's the constructor
a(void);
}
The question is, how do I initialize b in the initialization list, given that I can't initialize it inside the body of the function of the constructor, because b is const?
This doesn't work:
a::a(void) :
b([2,3])
{
// other initialization stuff
}
Edit: The case in point is when I can have different values for b for different instances, but the values are known to be constant for the lifetime of the instance.
With C++11 the answer to this question has now changed and you can in fact do:
struct a {
const int b[2];
// other bits follow
// and here's the constructor
a();
};
a::a() :
b{2,3}
{
// other constructor work
}
int main() {
a a;
}
Like the others said, ISO C++ doesn't support that. But you can workaround it. Just use std::vector instead.
int* a = new int[N];
// fill a
class C {
const std::vector<int> v;
public:
C():v(a, a+N) {}
};
It is not possible in the current standard. I believe you'll be able to do this in C++0x using initializer lists (see A Brief Look at C++0x, by Bjarne Stroustrup, for more information about initializer lists and other nice C++0x features).
std::vector uses the heap. Geez, what a waste that would be just for the sake of a const sanity-check. The point of std::vector is dynamic growth at run-time, not any old syntax checking that should be done at compile-time. If you're not going to grow then create a class to wrap a normal array.
#include <stdio.h>
template <class Type, size_t MaxLength>
class ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller {
private:
size_t length;
public:
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller() : length(0) {
}
virtual ~ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller() {
}
virtual void Fill(Type *array) = 0;
protected:
void add_element(Type *array, const Type & element)
{
if(length >= MaxLength) {
// todo: throw more appropriate out-of-bounds exception
throw 0;
}
array[length] = element;
length++;
}
};
template <class Type, size_t Length>
class ConstFixedSizeArray {
private:
Type array[Length];
public:
explicit ConstFixedSizeArray(
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller<Type, Length> & filler
) {
filler.Fill(array);
}
const Type *Array() const {
return array;
}
size_t ArrayLength() const {
return Length;
}
};
class a {
private:
class b_filler : public ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller<int, 2> {
public:
virtual ~b_filler() {
}
virtual void Fill(int *array) {
add_element(array, 87);
add_element(array, 96);
}
};
const ConstFixedSizeArray<int, 2> b;
public:
a(void) : b(b_filler()) {
}
void print_items() {
size_t i;
for(i = 0; i < b.ArrayLength(); i++)
{
printf("%d\n", b.Array()[i]);
}
}
};
int main()
{
a x;
x.print_items();
return 0;
}
ConstFixedSizeArrayFiller and ConstFixedSizeArray are reusable.
The first allows run-time bounds checking while initializing the array (same as a vector might), which can later become const after this initialization.
The second allows the array to be allocated inside another object, which could be on the heap or simply the stack if that's where the object is. There's no waste of time allocating from the heap. It also performs compile-time const checking on the array.
b_filler is a tiny private class to provide the initialization values. The size of the array is checked at compile-time with the template arguments, so there's no chance of going out of bounds.
I'm sure there are more exotic ways to modify this. This is an initial stab. I think you can pretty much make up for any of the compiler's shortcoming with classes.
ISO standard C++ doesn't let you do this. If it did, the syntax would probably be:
a::a(void) :
b({2,3})
{
// other initialization stuff
}
Or something along those lines. From your question it actually sounds like what you want is a constant class (aka static) member that is the array. C++ does let you do this. Like so:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A();
static const int a[2];
};
const int A::a[2] = {0, 1};
A::A()
{
}
int main (int argc, char * const argv[])
{
std::cout << "A::a => " << A::a[0] << ", " << A::a[1] << "\n";
return 0;
}
The output being:
A::a => 0, 1
Now of course since this is a static class member it is the same for every instance of class A. If that is not what you want, ie you want each instance of A to have different element values in the array a then you're making the mistake of trying to make the array const to begin with. You should just be doing this:
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A();
int a[2];
};
A::A()
{
a[0] = 9; // or some calculation
a[1] = 10; // or some calculation
}
int main (int argc, char * const argv[])
{
A v;
std::cout << "v.a => " << v.a[0] << ", " << v.a[1] << "\n";
return 0;
}
Where I've a constant array, it's always been done as static. If you can accept that, this code should compile and run.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
class a {
static const int b[2];
public:
a(void) {
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
printf("b[%d] = [%d]\n", i, b[i]);
}
}
};
const int a::b[2] = { 4, 2 };
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
a foo;
return 0;
}
You can't do that from the initialization list,
Have a look at this:
http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/initialization-lists-c++.html
:)
A solution without using the heap with std::vector is to use boost::array, though you can't initialize array members directly in the constructor.
#include <boost/array.hpp>
const boost::array<int, 2> aa={ { 2, 3} };
class A {
const boost::array<int, 2> b;
A():b(aa){};
};
How about emulating a const array via an accessor function? It's non-static (as you requested), and it doesn't require stl or any other library:
class a {
int privateB[2];
public:
a(int b0,b1) { privateB[0]=b0; privateB[1]=b1; }
int b(const int idx) { return privateB[idx]; }
}
Because a::privateB is private, it is effectively constant outside a::, and you can access it similar to an array, e.g.
a aobj(2,3); // initialize "constant array" b[]
n = aobj.b(1); // read b[1] (write impossible from here)
If you are willing to use a pair of classes, you could additionally protect privateB from member functions. This could be done by inheriting a; but I think I prefer John Harrison's comp.lang.c++ post using a const class.
interestingly, in C# you have the keyword const that translates to C++'s static const, as opposed to readonly which can be only set at constructors and initializations, even by non-constants, ex:
readonly DateTime a = DateTime.Now;
I agree, if you have a const pre-defined array you might as well make it static.
At that point you can use this interesting syntax:
//in header file
class a{
static const int SIZE;
static const char array[][10];
};
//in cpp file:
const int a::SIZE = 5;
const char array[SIZE][10] = {"hello", "cruel","world","goodbye", "!"};
however, I did not find a way around the constant '10'. The reason is clear though, it needs it to know how to perform accessing to the array. A possible alternative is to use #define, but I dislike that method and I #undef at the end of the header, with a comment to edit there at CPP as well in case if a change.