So I'm trying to create a class which has a container for functors of a different type.
This is a simplified version of it.
template<class T>
class Container
{
public:
template<typename F, typename ... ARGS>
void addTask(F && func, ARGS && ... args);
private:
std::deque<std::function<T()>> container;
//.....
};
template<class T>
template<typename F, typename ... ARGS>
T Container<T>::addTask(F && func, ARGS && ... args);
{
container.emplace_back(std::bind(f,args...));
//.....
}
There are still few problems that I cannot solve yet.
Is there a way to remove std::bind and store a different object or a pointer?
Could this be more generic? Can I somehow store functions, which return different objects, in a single container(int,void...)?
Can some of the logic for creating the tasks be executed in compile time?Something like consexpr bind.
From a comment by the OP.
There are. This is simplified. I'm using futures and a special container in the real code. It is meant to be used in a multithreading environment
This is called burying the lede.
If you are storing callables to be invoked in other threads, in the other thread you want signature void(). In this thread you want a std::future to be populated.
As for binding arguments, while a number of std functions do this for you, I find it is best to ask for callables with pre-bound arguments. They can do it outside, using std::bind or lambdas or whatever other means they choose.
So this then comes
template<class Func,
class R = std::decay_t<std::result_of_t<Func const&()>>
>
std::future< R >
addTask( Func&& func ) {
auto task = std::packaged_task<R()>(std::forward<Func>(func));
auto ret = task.get_future();
container.push_back( std::packaged_task<void()>( std::move(task) ) );
return ret;
}
std::deque< std::packaged_task<void()> > container;
throw in some mutexes and shake and bake.
Here I use std::packaged_task<void()> as a pre-written move-only type-erased container for anything with that signature. We don't use the future it can produce, which is a waste, but it is shorter than writing your own move-only invoke-once owning function object.
I personally just wrote myself a light weight move-only std::function<void()> esque class instead of using std::packaged_task<void()>, but it was probably unwise.
The future returned from addTask gets fullfilled when the packaged_task<R()> is invoked, which is invoked when the packaged_task<void()> is invoked (possibly in another thread).
Outside of the structure, callers can give you any zero-argument callable object.
99 times out of 100, a simple [some_arg]{ some_code; } or even []{ some_code; } works. In complex cases they can mess around with std::bind or C++14 improvements with more complex lambdas.
Putting the storing of the arguments into addTask mixes the responsibility of the thread-task-queue with messing with arguments.
In fact, I'd write a thread-safe queue separately from my thread-pool, and have the thread-pool use it:
template<class T>
struct thread_safe_queue;
struct thread_pool {
thread_safe_queue< std::packaged_task<void()> > queue;
// etc
};
In C++17, a replacement for your bind looks like:
[
func = std::forward<Func>(func),
args = std::make_tuple( std::forward<Args>(args)... )
]() mutable {
std::apply( func, std::move(args) );
}
In C++14 you can write notstd::apply pretty easy. Move-into-lambda requires C++14, so if you need to efficiently move arguments you need std bind or a manual function object in C++11.
I will argue that placing the argument binding strongly in the domain of the code using the thread pool is best.
That also permits the thread pool to do things like pass the tasks optional extra arguments, like "cancellation tokens" or the like.
std::bind came from boost::bind, which was necessary before we had lambdas.
Unfortunately std::bind made it into the standard at the same time as lambdas, so it was immediately almost irrelevant.
In c++14 and beyond you can capture the function and args in a variadic lambda:
template<class T>
template<typename F, typename ... ARGS>
T Container<T>::addTask(F && func, ARGS && ... args)
{
container.emplace_back( [func = std::forward<F>(func),
args...]
() mutable // make mutable if you want to move the args in to func
{
return func(std::move(args)...);
});
//.....
}
You don't quite get perfect forwarding this way. There is a copy implicit in the capture of args...
This solved in c++17
template<class T>
template<typename F, typename ... ARGS>
T Container<T>::addTask(F && func, ARGS && ... args)
{
container.emplace_back( [func = std::forward<F>(func),
args = std::make_tuple(std::forward<ARGS>(args)...) ]
() mutable // make mutable if you want to move the args in to func
{
return std::apply(func, std::move(args));
});
//.....
}
Related
I am trying to write a performance test that can run functions with
different number of arguments.
Something like this:
// optimization.cpp
struc Command{
unkown_type fun;
} command1;
perf_test(Command exec){
unkown_type ptr = exec.fun
// start timer
ptr();
// stop timer
}
// main.cpp
user_function1(double x[], double y[]);
user_function2(double x[], double y[], int z, double A[]);
// somehow bind function
command1.exec = user_function1
perf_test(command1);
Is there somehow a way of doing this and getting good results e.g. function inlining and so on or is this simply not possible?
I know about std::function and std::bind but unfortunately std::function
has a large overhead which makes no sense for my performance measurements.
You are making this more complicated than it needs to be.
template <class Function, class ...Args>
auto perf_test(Function &&f, Args && ...args) {
// start timer
std::forward<Function>(f)(std::forward<Args>(args) ...);
// stop timer
//print or return or store time
}
To be used like
auto passed_time = perf_test(user_function1, somex, somey);
If you really must have your Command struct you can store the args in a std::tuple and then use std::apply to call the function. If you put the time measuring code around the function and then assign it to an std::function you can use the convenience of std::function without its overhead influencing your measurement. This can look something like
template <class Function, class... Args>
std::function<std::chrono::nanoseconds()> make_perf_test(Function &&f,
Args &&... args) {
return [f = std::forward<Function>(f),
args = std::make_tuple(std::forward<Args>(args)...)]() mutable {
const auto start = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
std::apply(std::forward<decltype(f)>(f), std::move(args));
return std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now() - start;
};
}
to be used like
auto uf1 = make_perf_test(user_function1, x, y);
std::cout << "user_function1 took " << uf1().count() << "ns\n";
This gives you an easy to store type std::function<std::chrono::nanoseconds()> that type-erases the parameters and arguments away while not including that overhead in the measurement.
There is are some tweaking spot. Maybe the lambda should not be mutable so that the arguments cannot change so that you can repeat the measurement. Also due to limitations of std::function, this requires that the function and parameters are copyable.
You can use a variadic template for this.
template<typename F, typename... Args>
void invoke_func(F func, Args&&... args) {
func(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
You can then call that directly within your performance measuring code.
I am trying to figure out if my use of std::forward in the following code makes sense even though it is not a forwarding (=universal) reference. Please excuse the amount of code, but this is the stripped-down version of what I am trying to achieve.
template <class... Args>
class event_dispatcher {
private:
using func_t = std::function<bool(Args...)>;
public:
bool operator()(Args... args) const {
for (auto& f : funcs) {
if (!f(args...))
return false;
}
return true;
}
template <class F>
std::enable_if_t<std::is_invocable_r_v<bool, F, Args...>>
add(F&& f) {
funcs.emplace_back(std::forward<F>(f));
}
template <class F>
std::enable_if_t<!std::is_invocable_r_v<bool, F, Args...> && std::is_invocable_v<F, Args...>>
add(F&& f) {
add([f_ = std::forward<F>(f)](Args... args){
std::invoke(f_, std::forward<Args>(args)...); // <-- this is the one I am asking about!
return true;
});
}
private:
std::vector<func_t> funcs;
};
The idea is that if the callable passed to add() doesn't return a bool, we will wrap it in a lambda that does.
Now, if I just pass args... directly, it will always work, but if any of Args are rvalues then it will needlessly do a copy instead of a move. If I instead use std::move(args)... it will not work if any of Args is an lvalue. Using std::forward<Args>(args)... here seems to solve these problems and work as efficiently as possible in any case, but I am worried that I am missing something since I am using std::forward for a non-forwarding reference, and in general I am having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around the whole reference collapsing / rvalue reference / std::move / std::forward issues.
std::move does not move std::forward does not forward.
std::forward is a conditional move. std::forward<T> moves if T is a value or rvalue reference.
This lines up with when you want to move args..., so it is appropriate here.
A comment along those lines should be a good idea, as in any situation where you use std::forward outside of simple forwarding references.
In this question I talked about how to create a multi-function memoizator. In one of the answers, it was suggested to implement perfect forwarding, so passing the arguments to desired function will result inexpensive, like this:
template <typename ReturnType, typename... Args>
ReturnType callFunction(MemFunc<ReturnType, Args...> memFunc, Args&& ... args) //rvalue reference of args
{
auto it = multiCache.find(memFunc.name);
if (it == multiCache.end())
throw KeyNotFound(memFunc.name);
boost::any anyCachedFunc = it->second;
function < ReturnType(Args...)> cachedFunc = boost::any_cast<function<ReturnType(Args...)>> (anyCachedFunc);
return cachedFunc(forward<Args> (args) ...);//perfect forwarding
}
I'm not an expert of move semantic and perfect forwarding, but from what I've understood we need to pass an rvalue when we call callFunction.
So the first callFunction calling is illegal, while the second one is:
typedef vector<double> vecD;
MultiMemoizator mem;
//lambda function that returns the sorted vector (just for fun)
function<vecD(vecD)> sort_vec = [](vecD vec) {
sort(vec.begin(),vec.end());
return vec;
};
vector<vecD> vec;
// here fill vec...
mem.callFunction<double, double>(sortFunc, vec); //error! vec is an lvalue
mem.callFunction<double, double>(sortFunc, move(vec));//OK: move(vec) return an rvalue of the lvalue (vec)
The problem is that in this application, callFunction is supposed to be called several times on the same object, which is not supposed to happen once we call move on our object.
So for example:
mem.callFunction<double, double>(sortFunc, move(vec));//First time: sorting will take A LONG time because vec is not memoized
//now is not safe to use vec anymore...but it's memoized for sortFunc
mem.callFunction<double, double>(sortFunc, move(vec));//computed quickly because of memoization, but unsafe because of first move!
So from what I can understand I have to make a choice:
Give up on perfect forwarding implementing callFunction(MemFunc<ReturnType, Args...> memFunc, Args ... args) (or Args & ... args) , but introducing an expensive copy when we call cachedFunc(args)
Keep the efficient perfect forwarding, but introduce possible unexpected behaviour on multiple move on the same object
Obviously the second choice is not acceptable, so how can I avoid the first one?
A POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
The solution posted above is too much restrictive for the user: what if he wants, for some reason, to use vec again? So a possible solution could be to overload callFunction so it accept both solutions:
//rvalue reference/move/perfect forwarding implementation
template <typename ReturnType, typename... Args>
ReturnType callFunction(MemFunc<ReturnType, Args...> memFunc, Args&& ... args) {
...
return cachedFunc(forward<Args> (args) ...);//perfect forwarding
}
//lvalue reference/no perfect forwarding implementation
template <typename ReturnType, typename... Args>
ReturnType callFunction(MemFunc<ReturnType, Args...> memFunc, Args& ... args) {
...
return cachedFunc(args);//expensive!
}
This solution has some disadvantage or could lead to some problem?
What I want to do is design a class that can execute a function asynchronously. I need warp it in member function, because I want to know whether it complete or not.
The basic design is the following:
struct SelectionAsynMission
{
template<typename Function, typename...Args>
void start(Function && f, Args&&...a)
{
// compiler failed here
thread_.swap(thread(std::bind(&SelectionAsynMission::execute_warp<Function, Args ...>, this), f,std::forward<Args>(a)...));
//thread_.swap(std::thread(f, std::forward<Args>(a)...)); no warp work fine
thread_.detach();
}
template<typename Function, typename...Args>
void execute_warp(Function && f, Args&& ... a)
{
thread_complete_ = false;
f(std::forward<Args>(a)...);
thread_complete_ = true;
}
void join();
atomic<bool> thread_complete_; // Use atomic to tell the main thread whether it is complete.
thread thread_;
};
The Compile Error is:
error C2064: term does not evaluate to a function taking 1 arguments
So any suggestion for the design to fulfill the requirement
Or ideas about fix the compile error would be helpful.
Thank you for your help, I was stupid enough to forget the basic of std::bind.
Before see your comments and answers
I have tried another way to do this. I use async to warp the function, and instead the atomic, i use future status to determine whether the job complete. I wasn't sure which cost more time, read atomic or future status, but the future status seems easier.
template<class Function, class...Args>
void start(Function && f, Args&... a)
{
// start the function with async
future_node_ = std::async(std::launch::async,f,std::forward<Args&>(a)...);
}
bool iscomplete()
{
// wait for zero time to get status.
auto status = future_node_.wait_for(std::chrono::nanoseconds(0));
// determine whether the job is done
return status == std::future_status::ready;
}
Well, you have kind of a skeleton of something usable. But the error is pretty obvious if you look where the error is coming from:
std::thread(std::bind(member_fn, this), fn, args...)
You're trying to pass arguments to a function object returned from a std::bind that doesn't take any arguments.
What you want to do is pretty hard using std::bind, because it requires the std::placeholders constructs _1, _2, _3, etc, etc to signal that there are _n many args to be passed. That would require some template trickery.
A better option would be to use a lambda expression; a feature of C++11, which you are probably using seeing as though you make use of std::thread which is another C++11 feature.
Here's how to do it using lambdas:
class myclass{
template<typename Func, typename ... Args>
void start(Func &&f, Args &&... args){
m_thread.swap(std::thread{
[this](Func &&f, Args &&... uargs){
this->execute_warp(std::forward<Func>(f), std::forward<Args>(uargs)...);
},
std::forward<Func>(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...
});
m_thread.detach();
}
template<typename Func, typename ... Args>
void execute_warp(Func &&f, Args &&... args){
m_thread_done = false;
f(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
m_thread_done = true;
}
void join(){
while(!m_thread_done.load(std::memory_order_relaxed)){}
}
std::atomic<bool> m_thread_done;
std::thread m_thread;
}
And I might add a way to do it using std::bind to my answer.
Can generic lambdas take advantage of the "Substitution Failure Is Not An Error" rule ? Example
auto gL =
[](auto&& func, auto&& param1, auto&&... params)
-> enable_if_t< is_integral<
std::decay_t<decltype(param1)>
>::value>
{
// ...
};
auto gL =
[](auto&& func, auto&& param1, auto&&... params)
-> enable_if_t< !is_integral<
std::decay_t<decltype(param1)>
>::value>
{
// ...
};
Are there any workarounds or plans to include this in the language ? Also since generic lambdas are templated function objects under the hood isn't it a bit odd that this can't be done ?
Lambdas are function objects under the hood. Generic lambdas are function objects with template operator()s.
template<class...Fs>
struct funcs_t{};
template<class F0, class...Fs>
struct funcs_t<F0, Fs...>: F0, funcs_t<Fs...> {
funcs_t(F0 f0, Fs... fs):
F0(std::move(f0)),
funcs_t<Fs...>(std::move(fs)...)
{}
using F0::operator();
using funcs_t<Fs...>::operator();
};
template<class F>
struct funcs_t<F>:F {
funcs_t(F f):F(std::move(f)){};
using F::operator();
};
template<class...Fs>
funcs_t< std::decay_t<Fs>... > funcs(Fs&&...fs) {
return {std::forward<Fs>(fs)...};
}
auto f_all = funcs( f1, f2 ) generates an object that is an overload of both f1 and f2.
auto g_integral =
[](auto&& func, auto&& param1, auto&&... params)
-> std::enable_if_t< std::is_integral<
std::decay_t<decltype(param1)>
>{}>
{
// ...
};
auto g_not_integral =
[](auto&& func, auto&& param1, auto&&... params)
-> std::enable_if_t< !std::is_integral<
std::decay_t<decltype(param1)>
>{}>
{
// ...
};
auto gL = funcs( g_not_integral, g_integral );
and calling gL will do SFINAE friendly overload resolution on the two lambdas.
The above does some spurious moves, which could be avoided, in the linear inheritance of funcs_t. In an industrial quality library, I might make the inheritance binary rather than linear (to limit instantiation depth of templates, and the depth of the inheritance tree).
As an aside, there are 4 reasons I know of to SFINAE enable lambdas.
First, with new std::function, you can overload a function on multiple different callback signatures.
Second, the above trick.
Third, currying a function object where it evaluates when it has the right number and type of args.
Forth, automatic tuple unpacking and similar. If I'm using continuation passing style, I can ask the passed in continuation if it will accept the tuple unpacked, or the future unbundled, etc.
A generic lambda can only have one body, so SFINAE wouldn't be of much use here.
One solution would be to package the call into a class which can store the result and is specialized on a void return type, encapsulating the void special handling away from your lambda. With a very little overhead, you can do this using the thread library facilities:
auto gL =
[](auto&& func, auto&&... params)
{
// start a timer
using Ret = decltype(std::forward<decltype(func)>(func)(
std::forward<decltype(params)>(params)...));
std::packaged_task<Ret()> task{[&]{
return std::forward<decltype(func)>(func)(
std::forward<decltype(params)>(params)...); }};
auto fut = task.get_future();
task();
// stop timer and print elapsed time
return fut.get();
};
If you want to avoid the overhead of packaged_task and future, it's easy to write your own version:
template<class T>
struct Result
{
template<class F, class... A> Result(F&& f, A&&... args)
: t{std::forward<F>(f)(std::forward<A>(args)...)} {}
T t;
T&& get() { return std::move(t); }
};
template<>
struct Result<void>
{
template<class F, class... A> Result(F&& f, A&&... args)
{ std::forward<F>(f)(std::forward<A>(args)...); }
void get() {}
};
auto gL =
[](auto&& func, auto&&... params)
{
// start a timer
using Ret = decltype(std::forward<decltype(func)>(func)(
std::forward<decltype(params)>(params)...));
Result<Ret> k{std::forward<decltype(func)>(func),
std::forward<decltype(params)>(params)...};
// stop timer and print elapsed time
return k.get();
};
The use of SFINAE is to remove an overload or a specialization from the candidate set when resolving a given function or template. In your case, we have a lambda - that is a functor with a single operator(). There is no overload, so there is no reason to use SFINAE1. The fact that the lambda is generic, which makes its operator() a function template, doesn't change that fact.
However, you don't actually need to differentiate between different return types. If func returns void for the given arguments, you can still return it. You just can't assign it to a temporary. But you don't have to do that either:
auto time_func = [](auto&& func, auto&&... params) {
RaiiTimer t;
return std::forward<decltype(func)>(func)(
std::forward<decltype(params)>(params)...);
};
Just write an RaiiTimer whose constructor starts a timer and whose destructor stops it and prints the result. This will work regardless of func's return type.
If you need something more complicated than that, then this is one of those cases where you should prefer a functor over a lambda.
1Actually, as Yakk points out, SFINAE could still be quite handy to check if your function is callable period, which isn't the problem you're trying to solve - so in this case, still not very helpful.