Got an Error when using C++20 Polymorphism Lambda Function - c++

I'm trying to write a higher-order function via Lambda in C++, and got this code.
void ProcessList::SortCol(std::string col, bool flag) {
auto CmpGenerator = [&]<typename T>
(std::function<T(const Process &itm)> func) {
return (flag? [&](const Process &a, const Process &b) {
return func(a) < func(b);}
: [&](const Process &a, const Process &b) {
return func(a) > func(b);}
);
};
std::function<bool(const Process &a, const Process &b)> cmp;
if (col == "PID") {
cmp = CmpGenerator([](const Process &itm) {
return itm.GetPid();
});
}
else if (col == "CPU") {
cmp = CmpGenerator([](const Process &itm) {
return itm.GetRatioCPU();
});
}
else if (col == "COMMAND") {
cmp = CmpGenerator([](const Process &itm) {
return itm.GetCmd();
});
}
std::sort(lst.begin(), lst.end(), cmp);
}
However when compiling, g++ reported that no match for call to
no match for call to ‘(ProcessList::SortCol(std::string, bool)::<lambda(std::function<T(const Process&)>)>) (ProcessList::SortCol(std::string, bool)::<lambda(const Process&)>)’
What's wrong here with the code?

The primary problem in this example is that a lambda is not a std::function. See this question.
CmpGenerator deduces its argument as std::function<T(Process const&)>, but a lambda will never match that, so deduction fails.
Furthermore, the body of CmpGenerator tries to return one of two different lambdas - which have different types. Those lambdas are not convertible to each other, so the conditional expression will fail. But we also can't deduce the return type of CmpGenerator since the two different lambdas have different types.
We can start by doing this completely by hand. std::ranges::sort takes a projection, which is very helpful in this regard:
if (col == "PID") {
if (increasing) { // <== 'flag' is not a great name
std::ranges::sort(lst, std::less(), &Process::GetPid);
} else {
std::ranges::sort(lst, std::greater(), &Process::GetPid);
}
} else if (col == "CPU") {
// ...
}
This gives the structure that we need to abstract: we're not generating a comparison object, we're generating a call to sort.
That is:
auto sort_by = [&](auto projection){ // <== NB: auto, not std::function
if (increasing) {
std::ranges::sort(lst, std::less(), projection);
} else {
std::ranges::sort(lst, std::greater(), projection);
}
};
if (col == "PID") {
sort_by(&Process::GetPid);
} else if (col == "CPU") {
sort_by(&Process::GetRatioCPU);
} else if (col == "COMMAND") {
sort_by(&Process::GetCmd);
}

Related

C++ call and definition mismatch

I am looking at this code block at
https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/master/torch/csrc/autograd/profiler.cpp#L141
pushCallback(
[config](const RecordFunction& fn) {
auto* msg = (fn.seqNr() >= 0) ? ", seq = " : "";
if (config.report_input_shapes) {
std::vector<std::vector<int64_t>> inputSizes;
inputSizes.reserve(fn.inputs().size());
for (const c10::IValue& input : fn.inputs()) {
if (!input.isTensor()) {
inputSizes.emplace_back();
continue;
}
const at::Tensor& tensor = input.toTensor();
if (tensor.defined()) {
inputSizes.push_back(input.toTensor().sizes().vec());
} else {
inputSizes.emplace_back();
}
}
pushRangeImpl(fn.name(), msg, fn.seqNr(), std::move(inputSizes));
} else {
pushRangeImpl(fn.name(), msg, fn.seqNr(), {});
}
},
[](const RecordFunction& fn) {
if (fn.getThreadId() != 0) {
// If we've overridden the thread_id on the RecordFunction, then find
// the eventList that was created for the original thread_id. Then,
// record the end event on this list so that the block is added to
// the correct list, instead of to a new list. This should only run
// when calling RecordFunction::end() in a different thread.
if (state == ProfilerState::Disabled) {
return;
} else {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(all_event_lists_map_mutex);
const auto& eventListIter =
all_event_lists_map.find(fn.getThreadId());
TORCH_INTERNAL_ASSERT(
eventListIter != all_event_lists_map.end(),
"Did not find thread_id matching ",
fn.getThreadId());
auto& eventList = eventListIter->second;
eventList->record(
EventKind::PopRange,
StringView(""),
fn.getThreadId(),
state == ProfilerState::CUDA);
}
} else {
popRange();
}
},
config.report_input_shapes);
This only has three arguments. But the definition of pushCallback seems to be at this location
https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/master/torch/csrc/autograd/record_function.cpp#L35 and takes four parameters.
void pushCallback(
RecordFunctionCallback start,
RecordFunctionCallback end,
bool needs_inputs,
bool sampled) {
start_callbacks.push_back(std::move(start));
end_callbacks.push_back(std::move(end));
if (callback_needs_inputs > 0 || needs_inputs) {
++callback_needs_inputs;
}
is_callback_sampled.push_back(sampled);
if (sampled) {
++num_sampled_callbacks;
}
}
I don't know why that function call could work in that way.
If you look at the header you find that it is declared with 4 parameters, out of which the last three have defaults:
TORCH_API void pushCallback(
RecordFunctionCallback start,
RecordFunctionCallback end = [](const RecordFunction&){},
bool needs_inputs = false,
bool sampled = false);
Default arguments only appear on the declaration not on the definition.

Am I using function pointers correctly?

I have a function that looks something like this in pseudocode:
std::string option = "option1" // one of n options, user supplied
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
if (option == "option1") {
doFunction1a();
} else if (option == "option2") {
doFunction2a();
} else if (option == "option3") {
doFunction3a();
}
// more code...
if (option == "option1") {
doFunction1b();
} else if (option == "option2") {
doFunction2b();
} else if (option == "option3") {
doFunction3b();
}
}
However, I could avoid the repeated if statement inside the loop by doing something like this:
std::string option = "option1" // one of n options, user supplied
int (*doFunctiona)(int, int);
int (*doFunctionb)(int, int);
if (option == "option1") {
doFunctiona = doFunction1a;
doFunctionb = doFunction1b;
} else if (option == "option2") {
doFunctiona = doFunction2a;
doFunctionb = doFunction2b;
} else if (option == "option3") {
doFunctiona = doFunction3a;
doFunctionb = doFunction3b;
}
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
doFunctiona();
// more code...
doFunctionb();
}
I realize that this will have little effect on performance (the time spend by the functions dominates the time it takes to execute the if statement).
However, In terms of "good coding practices", is this a good way to set up variable function calling? With "good" I mean: (1) easily expandable, there could easily be 20 options in the future; 2) results in readable code. I'm hoping there exists some kind of standard method for accomplishing this. If not, feel free to close as opinion based.
Just use an unordered_map and spare yourself the if-else-if-orgy:
std::unordered_map<std::string, std::vector<int (*)(int, int)>> functions;
functions.insert({ "option1", { doFunction1a, doFunction1b } });
...
const auto& vec = functions["option1"];
for(auto& f : vec) f(1, 2);
Beside using map I recommend to use std::function and lambdas which will give you more flexibility and syntax is more friendly (at least for me):
std::unordered_map<std::string, std::function<void()>> functions {
{
"option1",
[] {
functionA();
functionB();
}
},
{
"option2",
[] {
functionC();
functionD();
}
}
};
auto optionFuncIt = functions.find("option1");
if (optionFuncIt != functions.end()) {
optionFuncIt->second();
} else {
std::cerr << "Invalid option name" << std::endl;
}

Return from calling function inside lambda

Lambdas are an awesome way to create reusable code inside a function/method without polluting the parent class. They're a very functional replacement for C-style macros most of the time.
However, there's one bit of syntactic sugar from macros that I can't seem to replicate with a lambda, and that's the ability to exit from the containing function. For example, if I need to return while checking the range of a series of ints, I can do that easily with a macro:
const int xmin(1), xmax(5);
#define CHECK_RANGE(x) { if((x) < xmin || (x) > xmax) return false; }
bool myFunc(int myint) {
CHECK_RANGE(myint);
int anotherint = myint + 2;
CHECK_RANGE(anotherint);
return true;
}
Obviously this is an oversimplified example, but the basic premise is that I'm performing the same check over and over on different variables, and I think it's more readable to encapsulate the check and related exits. Still, I know that macros aren't very safe, especially when they get really complex. However, as far as I can tell, trying to do the equivalent lambda requires awkward additional checks like so:
const int xmin(1), xmax(5);
auto check_range = [&](int x) -> bool { return !(x < xmin || x > xmax); };
bool myFunc(int myint) {
if(!check_range(myint)) return false;
int anotherint = myint + 2;
if(!check_range(anotherint)) return false;
return true;
}
Is there a way to do this with a lambda? Or am I missing some alternative solution?
Edit: I recognize that returning from inside a macro is generally a bad idea unless significant precautions are taken. I'm just wondering if it's possible.
You are correct--there's no way to return from the caller from inside a lambda. Since a lambda can be captured and stored to be called later, from inside an arbitrary caller, doing so would result in unpredictable behavior.
class Foo
{
Foo(std::function<void(int)> const& callMeLater) : func(callMeLater) {}
void CallIt(int* arr, int count)
{
for (index = count; index--;)
func(count);
// do other stuff here.
}
std::function<void(int)> func;
};
int main()
{
auto find3 = [](int arr)
{
if (arr == 3)
return_from_caller; // making up syntax here.
};
Foo foo(find3);
};
Is there a way to do this with a lambda?
Not exactly like the macro but your lambda, instead of returning a bool, can throw a special exception (of type bool, by example)
auto check_range
= [](int x) { if ( (x < xmin) || (x > xmax) ) throw bool{false}; };
and the function myFunc() can intercept this special type
bool myFunc (int myint)
{
try
{
check_range(myint);
int anotherint = myint + 2;
check_range(anotherint);
return true;
}
catch ( bool e )
{ return e; }
}
For a single check_range() call, this is (I suppose) a bad idea; if you have a lot of calls, I suppose can be interesting.
The following is a full working example
#include <iostream>
constexpr int xmin{1}, xmax{5};
auto check_range
= [](int x) { if ( (x < xmin) || (x > xmax) ) throw bool{false}; };
bool myFunc (int myint)
{
try
{
check_range(myint);
int anotherint = myint + 2;
check_range(anotherint);
return true;
}
catch ( bool e )
{ return e; }
}
int main ()
{
std::cout << myFunc(0) << std::endl; // print 0
std::cout << myFunc(3) << std::endl; // print 1
std::cout << myFunc(7) << std::endl; // print 0
}
No better way to do this than just to use the return value of the lambda and then return from the calling function. Macros are ew for this.
As it stands in C++, that is the idiomatic way to exit from a function that uses another condition to determine whether or not to exit.
Not C++11, but people have hacked C++2a coroutines to basically do this.
It would look a bit like:
co_await check_range(foo);
where the co_await keyword indicates that in some cases, this coroutine could return early with an incomplete result. In your cases, this incomplete result would be non-resumabable error.
The playing around I saw was with optionals, and required using a shared ptr, but things may improve before it is standardized.

qsort and std::sort behaving differently

I am very amazed that sorting via qsort and std::sort can produce different results. I need help explaining the behavior of the following snippets:
using qsort:
// the following comparator has been used in qsort.
// if l<r : -1, l==r : 0 , l>r 1
int cmpre(const void *l, const void *r) {
if ((*(tpl *)l).fhf < (*(tpl *)r).fhf)
return -1;
else
if ((*(tpl *)l).fhf == (*(tpl *)r).fhf) {
if ((*(tpl *)l).nhf == (*(tpl *)r).nhf)
return 0;
else
if ((*(tpl *)l).nhf > (*(tpl *)r).nhf)
return 1;
else
return -1;
} else
return 1;
}
// and sort statement looks like :
qsort(tlst, len, sizeof(tpl), cmpre);
Complete Code link =>
http://ideone.com/zN87tX
Using sort:
// the following comparator was used for sort
int cmpr(const tpl &l, const tpl &r) {
if (l.fhf < r.fhf)
return -1;
else
if (l.fhf == r.fhf) {
if (l.nhf == r.nhf)
return 0;
else
if (l.nhf > r.nhf)
return 1;
else
return -1;
} else
return 1;
}
// and sort statement looks like :
sort(tlst, tlst + len, cmpr);
Complete code link at =>
http://ideone.com/37Dc2S
You can see the output on the link, after and before sorting operation and may wish to check out the compr and compre methods used to compare two tuples. I do not understand why sort is not able to sort the array whereas qsort is able to do so.
Rewrite cmpr() as
bool cmpr(const tpl &l, const tpl &r){
if(l.fhf != r.fhf) return l.fhf < r.fhf;
return l.nhf < r.nhf;
}
Or, you may also reuse cmpre() to implement cmpr().
bool cmpr(const tpl &l, const tpl &r) {
return (cmpre(&l, &r) < 0);
}

Return from a C++0x lambda caller directly

I've just rewritten the following C89 code, that returns from the current function:
// make sure the inode isn't open
{
size_t i;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_LEN(g_cpfs->htab); ++i)
{
struct Handle const *const handle = &g_cpfs->htab[i];
if (handle_valid(handle))
{
if (handle->ino == (*inode)->ino)
{
log_info("Inode "INO_FMT" is still open, delaying removal.",
(*inode)->ino);
return true;
}
}
}
}
With this C++0x STL/lambda hybrid:
std::for_each(g_cpfs->htab.begin(), g_cpfs->htab.end(), [inode](Handle const &handle) {
if (handle.valid()) {
if (handle.ino == inode->ino) {
log_info("Inode "INO_FMT" is still open, delaying removal.", inode->ino);
return true;
}
}});
Which generates:
1>e:\src\cpfs4\libcpfs\inode.cc(128): error C3499: a lambda that has been specified to have a void return type cannot return a value
I hadn't considered that the return in the lambda, doesn't actually return from the caller (having never seen a scoped function in C/C++ before now). How do I return true from the caller where the original function would have done so?
You don't; std::for_each isn't structured to handle an early return. You could throw an exception...
Or don't use a lambda:
for (auto const &handle : g_cpfs->htab) {
// code that was in lambda body
}
Use std::find_if() instead of std::for_each():
if (std::find_if(g_cpfs->htab.begin(), g_cpfs->htab.end(),
[inode](Handle const &handle) {
if (handle.valid() && handle.ino == inode->ino) {
log_info("Inode "INO_FMT" is still open, delaying removal.",
inode->ino);
return true;
}
return false;
}) != g_cpfs->htab.end()) {
return true;
}