Recently I tried to implement my own version of a smart pointer. The implementation looks a bit like the following:
class Var {
private:
void* value;
unsigned short* uses;
public:
Var() : value(nullptr), uses(new unsigned short(1)) { }
template<typename K>
Var(K value) : value((void*)new K(value)), uses(new unsigned short(1)) { }
Var(const Var &obj) {
value = obj.value;
(*(uses = obj.uses))++;
}
~Var() {
if (value == nullptr && uses == nullptr) return;
if (((*uses) -= 1) <= 0) {
delete value;
delete uses;
value = uses = nullptr;
}
}
Var& operator=(const Var& obj) {
if (this != &obj) {
this->~Var();
value = obj.value;
(*(uses = obj.uses))++;
}
return *this;
}
};
The implementation should be straight forward, as value holds the pointer and uses counts the references.
Please note the pointer is stored as a void* and the pointer class is not fixed to certain (generic) type.
The Problem
Most of the time the smart pointer does it's job... the exception being the following:
class C {
public:
Var var;
C(Var var) : var(var) {}
};
void test() {
std::string string = std::string("Heyo");
Var var1 = Var(string);
C c = C(var1);
Var var2 = Var(c);
}
void main() {
test();
}
When running that code the very first instance, var1, does not get deleted after test has run.
Yes, using a void* is not exactly the finest of methods. Yet lets not get off topic. The code compiles perfectly fine (if one might question my use of sub-assign operator). And if the error would be in the deletion of a void* the reference counter, uses, would be deleted but it is not.
I have checked with the destructors before and they all get called as they should.
Do also note that the programm runs without errors.
Thank You all in advance,
Sheldon
Three big problems I see with your code are:
you are storing the allocated object pointer as a void*, and then calling delete on it as-is. That will not call the object's destructor. You must type-cast the void* back to the original type before calling delete, but you can't do since you have lost the type info after the Var constructor exits.
you have separated the object pointer and the reference counter from each other. They should be kept together at all times. Best way to do that is to store them in a struct, and then allocate and pass that around as needed.
your operator= is calling this->~Var(), which is completely wrong. Once you do that, the object pointed to by this is no longer valid! You need to keep the instance alive, so simply decrement its current reference counter, freeing its stored object if needed, and then copy the pointers from the source Var and increment that reference counter.
Try this alternate implementation instead (Live Demo):
class Var
{
private:
struct controlBlockBase
{
unsigned short uses;
controlBlockBase() : uses(1) { }
virtual ~controlBlockBase() { }
};
template <class K>
struct controlBlockImpl : controlBlockBase
{
K value;
controlBlockImpl(const K &val) : controlBlockBase(), value(val) {}
};
controlBlockBase *cb;
public:
Var() : cb(nullptr) { }
template<typename K>
Var(const K &value) : cb(new controlBlockImpl<K>(value)) { }
Var(const Var &obj) : cb(obj.cb) {
if (cb) {
++(cb->uses);
}
}
Var(Var &&obj) : cb(nullptr) {
obj.swap(*this);
}
~Var() {
if ((cb) && ((cb->uses -= 1) <= 0)) {
delete cb;
cb = nullptr;
}
}
Var& operator=(const Var& obj) {
if (this != &obj) {
Var(obj).swap(*this);
}
return *this;
}
Var& operator=(Var &&obj) {
obj.swap(*this);
return *this;
}
/* or, the two above operator= codes can be
merged into a single implementation, where
the input parameter is passed by non-const
value and the compiler decides whether to use
copy or move semantics as needed:
Var& operator=(Var obj) {
obj.swap(*this);
return *this;
}
*/
void swap(Var &other)
{
std::swap(cb, other.cb);
}
unsigned short getUses() const {
return (cb) ? cb->uses : 0;
}
template<class K>
K* getAs() {
if (!cb) return nullptr;
return &(dynamic_cast<controlBlockImpl<K>&>(*cb).value);
}
};
void swap(Var &v1, Var v2) {
v1.swap(v2);
}
Update: That being said, what Var is doing is basically the same effect as using a std::any wrapped in a std::shared_ptr, so you may as well just use those instead (std::any is in C++17 and higher only, use boost::any for earlier versions):
class Var
{
private:
std::shared_ptr<std::any> ptr;
public:
template<typename K>
Var(const K &value) : ptr(std::make_shared<std::any>(value)) { }
void swap(Var &other) {
std::swap(ptr, other.ptr);
}
long getUses() const {
return ptr.use_count();
}
template<class K>
K* getAs() {
return any_cast<K>(ptr.get());
}
};
void swap(Var &v1, Var &v2) {
v1.swap(v2);
}
Related
I want to recorded the line which created the shared_ptr in C++ 11.
Here is my way to rewrite shared_ptr as Shared_ptr :
template<class T>
class Shared_Ptr{
public:
Shared_Ptr(T* ptr = nullptr,int line=__LINE__)
:_pPtr(ptr)
, _pRefCount(new int(1))
, _pMutex(new mutex)
{
cout<<this<<"is located in "<<line<<endl;
}
~Shared_Ptr()
{
Release();
cout<<this<<endl;
}
Shared_Ptr(const Shared_Ptr<T>& sp)
:_pPtr(sp._pPtr)
, _pRefCount(sp._pRefCount)
, _pMutex(sp._pMutex)
{
AddRefCount();
}
Shared_Ptr<T>& operator=(const Shared_Ptr<T>& sp)
{
//if (this != &sp)
if (_pPtr != sp._pPtr)
{
Release();
_pPtr = sp._pPtr;
_pRefCount = sp._pRefCount;
_pMutex = sp._pMutex;
AddRefCount();
}
return *this;
}
T& operator*(){
return *_pPtr;
}
T* operator->(){
return _pPtr;
}
int UseCount() { return *_pRefCount; }
T* Get() { return _pPtr; }
void AddRefCount()
{
_pMutex->lock();
++(*_pRefCount);
_pMutex->unlock();
}
private:
void Release()
{
bool deleteflag = false;
_pMutex->lock();
if (--(*_pRefCount) == 0)
{
delete _pRefCount;
delete _pPtr;
deleteflag = true;
}
_pMutex->unlock();
if (deleteflag == true)
delete _pMutex;
}
private:
int *_pRefCount;
T* _pPtr;
mutex* _pMutex;
};
class student
{
int age;
public:
student(int a):age(a)
{
}
}
;
int main()
{
Shared_ptr<student> Tom(new student(24),__LINE__);
}
Is there a way to make Shared_ptr<student>Tom(new student(24)) as same as Shared_ptr <student> Tom(new student(24),__ LINE__) in C++11? In other words , invoke class Constructor with the arguments bound to args.
I tried to use marco to achieve,but I don't know the correct way how to define the macro of template class constructor.
Below is the macro definition I tried to write but wrong
template<typename T>
#define Shared_ptr<T>::Shared_ptr(T*) Shared_ptr<T>::Shared_ptr(T * ,__LINE__)
Replace int line=__LINE__ in constructor parameters with int line = __builtin_LINE(). It's a non-standard compiler extension, but it works at least in GCC, Clang, and MSVC (i.e. most common compilers).
Then Shared_ptr<student> Tom(nullptr); will work.
Shared_ptr<student> Tom(42); will not work, because Shared_ptr doesn't have the right constructor, but it has nothing to do with getting the line number.
class all {
public:
template <typename T>
all(T&& t)
: data_ptr(new derived<T>(std::forward<T>(t))) {
}
all()
: data_ptr(nullptr) {}
all(const all& o)
: data_ptr(o.clone()) {}
all(const all&& o)
: data_ptr(o.clone()) {}
all& operator=(const all& o) {
auto n = o.clone();
if (data_ptr != nullptr) {
delete data_ptr;
}
data_ptr = n;
return *this;
}
all& operator=(all&& a)
{
if (data_ptr == a.data_ptr)
return *this;
swap(data_ptr, a.data_ptr);
return *this;
}
~all() {
if (data_ptr != nullptr) {
delete data_ptr;
}
}
template <typename U>
bool is() const {
auto ret = dynamic_cast<derived<U>*>(data_ptr);
return ret != nullptr;
}
template<typename U> U& as(){
auto ret = dynamic_cast<derived<U>*>(data_ptr);
if (ret==nullptr){
throw std::runtime_error("type dynamic_cast error");
}
return ret->value;
}
template<typename U>operator U(){
return as<U>();
}
private:
struct base {
virtual base* clone() = 0;
virtual ~base(){};
};
template <typename T>
struct derived : public base {
template <typename U>
derived(U&& v)
: value(std::forward<U>(v)) {
}
T value;
base* clone() {
return new derived<T>(value);
}
};
base* data_ptr;
base* clone() const {
if (data_ptr == nullptr) {
return nullptr;
} else {
return data_ptr->clone();
}
}
};
cmake compile options:
set (CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 11)
SET(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS "${CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS} -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0 ")
test cases as follows:
int main(int argc, char const* argv[]) {
all at = 12;
cout << at.is<int>() << endl;
cout<<at.as<int>()<<endl;
cout<<int(at)<<endl;
return 0;
}
c++11,17 both compile successful,but c++ 11 throw segmentation fault when run ,c++17 run successful,why? i'm so frustrated,can someone help me?
Here is Complete Reproducible Example (not minimal).
all at = 12;
It seems that the conversion sequence is this:
A temporary object is constructed from the right hand expression, using the constructor all::all<int>(int&&).
That temporary object is used to initialise at.
Since the temporary all is non-const, the template constructor is a better match than all(const all&&).
Hence, all::all<all>(all&&) is invoked. This initialises a all::derived<all>::derived which has an all member that is initialised using all::all<all>(all&&) (because that is again, a better match than all::all(const all&&)), which invokes all::all(const all&&) which initialises all::derived<all>::derived which invokes all::all(const all&&) ... can you spot the pattern? The recursion never ends. You eventually get a stack overflow.
In C++17 at is initialised directly from the initialiser without involving a temporary object, so there is no stack overflow.
A simple fix is to add a move constructor:
all(all&& o) : data_ptr{std::exchange(o.data_ptr, nullptr)} {}
P.S. Avoid the use of bare owning pointers such as data_ptr. Use smart pointers such as std::unique_ptr instead.
I have a simple class which consists of a void pointer and an int (this is some sort of a boost::Variant educational project).
I also have a working copy constructor and a destructor.
But what grinds my gears is, how I would accomplish something like this:
Container cont1("some value"); //simple construction
Container cont2;
cont2.createLink(cont1); //this should initialize members with a reference (or something alike)
std::cout<<cont1; //yields "some value"
cont2.set(20); //setting this container should update the original container too, since I initialized with a reference (or smth alike)
std::cout<<cont1; //yields 20
This is the simplified version of the class:
class Container {
public:
Container(){}
Container(const std::string &val){var.type = STRING; var.data = new std::string(val);}
Container(int val){ /* same for int */}
Container(const Container &val){ /* do a memory copy */}
void set(int val){ /* set the value if type matches, otherwise allocate a new pointer */}
void set(const std::string &val){ /* the same as for int */}
void createLink(const Container &val){ /* somehow assign a reference or whatsoever */}
private:
typedef struct VAR {
int type = 0;
void *data = NULL; }
VAR var;
}
If I set the value of cont2 to a string (i.e. the same data type it holds at the moment), everything is fine, because the set would not allocate a new pointer and rather assign a new value.
But how do I make sure the pointer of cont1 updates if I assign a different value to cont2 and therefore have to allocate a new pointer?
Would I need something like shared_pointer?
Thanks for any insight!
EDIT:
I changed to function name to make it more clear what should happen.
There is a solution that only involves straight OO. You could create an interface for your variant type, and use double indirection to the variant instance to allow linked containers to share the same variant instance.
The reason double indirection is required is because of the way you want the set() method to automatically allocate a new variant instance if the new type doesn't match the original type. If we simply shared a pointer to the variant from both containers, then after set() creates a new variant instance, each container would be referring to different instances again.
To get around that, we can use a pointer to a pointer to a variant in the container instead.
Here is a possible way to define your variant interface, and how it could be subclassed:
typedef std::ostream Out;
struct BadType {};
struct Var {
virtual ~Var () = default;
virtual Out & print (Out &os) { return os << "(BadType)"; }
virtual void set (int) { throw BadType(); }
virtual void set (const std::string &) { throw BadType(); }
};
struct VarInteger : Var {
int data;
VarInteger (int v) : data(v) {}
Out & print (Out &os) { return os << data; }
void set (int v) throw() { data = v; }
};
struct VarString : Var {
std::string data;
VarString (const std::string &v) : data(v) {}
Out & print (Out &os) { return os << data; }
void set (const std::string &v) throw() { data = v; }
};
Here is how you could define your pointer to pointer, and how they could be initialized:
typedef std::shared_ptr<Var> VarPtr;
std::shared_ptr<VarPtr> varptr_;
static VarPtr make_var () { return std::make_shared<Var>(); }
static VarPtr make_var (int v) { return std::make_shared<VarInteger>(v); }
static VarPtr make_var (const std::string &v) {
return std::make_shared<VarString>(v);
}
VarPtr & var () { return *varptr_; }
const VarPtr & var () const { return *varptr_; }
Container () : varptr_(std::make_shared<VarPtr>(make_var())) {}
Container (int v) : varptr_(std::make_shared<VarPtr>(make_var(v))) {}
Container (const std::string &v)
: varptr_(std::make_shared<VarPtr>(make_var(v))) {}
And here is how your set() methods and createLink() method could be implemented.
void set (int v) {
try { var()->set(v); }
catch (BadType) { var() = make_var(v); }
}
void set (const std::string &v) {
try { var()->set(v); }
catch (BadType) { var() = make_var(v); }
}
void createLink (const Container &val) { varptr_ = val.varptr_; }
Demo
How about the following. Of course createLink cannot not take a const reference so I made it to take a non-const pointer.
class Container {
const int STRING = 0x0000001;
const int INT = 0x0000002;
const int LINK = 0x8000000;
public:
...
void set(int val){...}
void set(const std::string &val)
{
if (var.type == LINK)
{
reinterpret_cast<Container*>(var.data)->set(val);
}
else
...
}
void createLink(Container* val)
{
var.data = val;
var.type = LINK;
}
private:
typedef struct VAR {
int type = 0;
void *data = NULL;
};
VAR var;
};
There are a some important points to think about - relative lifetimes of the link and the linked is the most obvious one.
I have a C datastructure representing a vector of boolean values; for reasons outside of my control the bools' are stored internally as integers with two magical values (not 0 and 1 ...) representing true and false. I have created a C++ class wrapping this C structure, and it works nicely. I have implemented the set()and get()methods as:
void Class::set(size_t index , bool value) {
if (value)
c_ptr[index] = SPECIAL_TRUE_VALUE;
else
c_ptr[index] = SPECIAL_FALSE_VALUE;
}
This works ok; but ideally I would like to overload operator[], however it is not clear to me how/if I can do that - due to special transformation between bool and the integer values?
struct pseudo_reference {
operator bool()const&&{
return c->get(index);
}
pseudo_reference operator=(bool b)&&{
c->set(index, b);
return {c,index};
}
// sometimes having named functions is useful:
bool get() const&& {
return std::move(*this);
}
void set(bool b)&& {
std::move(*this) = b;
}
pseudo_reference()=delete;
private:
Class* c;
size_t index;
pseudo_reference(pseudo_reference&&o)=default; // not exposed
pseudo_reference(Class* pc, size_t i):c(pc),index(i){}
friend class Class;
};
In Class:
pseudo_reference operator[](size_t i){
return {this, i};
}
bool operator[](size_t i)const{
return c_ptr[index] == SPECIAL_TRUE_VALUE;
}
I stored both a pointer and an index, so I avoid reimplementing the logic of get/set in my pseudo_reference. Such pseudo_references are likely to be short-lived, so size optimization probably isn't important.
I blocked all non-rvalue operations to discourage storing a pseudo_reference. You can make said operations non-rvalue restricted relatively harmlessly, but in my experience pseudo_references are values that behave like references, so it is better if they don't persist.
Someone can still store a pseudo_reference via auto&& x = c[33];, but using it without moveing it won't be possible. Hopefully that catches most error-prone uses of it. auto x = c[33]; won't work.
To implement operator[](), you need to return a proxy object that does the actual assignment when it appears on the left-hand-side of =:
struct proxy {
proxy& operator=( bool value ) {
c_.c_ptr[ index_ ] = value ? SPECIAL_TRUE_VALUE : SPECIAL_FALSE_VALUE;
return *this;
}
operator bool() const { // for when it's just used normally, not =
return c_ptr[ index ] == SPECIAL_TRUE_VALUE;
}
private:
Class &c_;
size_t const index_;
proxy( Class &c, size_t index ) : c_( c ), index_( index ) { }
friend class Class;
}
class Class {
public:
proxy operator[]( size_t index ) {
return proxy( *this, index );
}
bool operator[]( size_t index ) const { // read-only access is easy
return c_ptr[ index ] == SPECIAL_TRUE_VALUE;
}
// ...
};
Or something like that.
You can return a wrapper helper class which handles assignment for you.
struct WrapMe {
c_ptr_T &value;
WrapMe(c_ptr_T &_value) : value(_value) {}
// handles assignment of bool values
WrapMe & operator=(const bool b) {
value = (b) ? SPECIAL_TRUE_VALUE : SPECIAL_FALSE_VALUE;
return *this;
}
// handles cast to bool
operator bool() const { return value == SPECIAL_TRUE_VALUE; }
};
class Class {
WrapMe operator[](const int idx) { return WrapMe(c_ptr[idx]); }
// ...
};
I need to create a generic object carrier class. I came up with something simple like
template<typename T>
class ObjectCarrier
{
public:
const T& item() const
{
return item_;
}
void setItem(T& item)
{
item_ = item;
}
private:
T item_;
};
This works well when T has got a default constructor (parameterless). Things gets complicated when T has parameterized constructors. So I rewrote the class like
template<typename T>
class ObjectCarrier
{
public:
const T& item() const
{
return *item_;
}
void setItem(T& item)
{
item_ = new T ( item );
}
private:
T* item_;
};
Changed the item_ variable to T* and created a new instance using the copy constructor of T. Again this worked well until T is a pointer type. I mean ObjectCarrier<Foo*> won't work.
I am wondering how can I design this class so that it works for almost all kind of types. I think I may need to create a traits type specialized for pointers. But unfortunately, I am not able to make that work.
Any help would be great.
The above approaches are way way too complicated. Keep it simple, and just solve the constructor arg problem by using template constructors. Don't use pointers, they will create object lifetime and copying headaches.
Here's an implementation I use a lot. The template constructors will forward arguments for things directly on to the nested object which is convenient. The operator T& values let you pass carrier<T> to functions that take a type T, without expensive copying. You can wrap objects that take up to two arguments with this code.
/* A wrapper of type T */
template <typename T>
struct carrier {
carrier() {}
template <typename A1> carrier(const A1& a1) : value(a1) {}
template <typename A1, typename A2> carrier(const A1& a1, const A2& a2) : value(a1, a2) {}
operator T&() { return value; }
operator const T&() const { return value; }
T value;
};
You can use it like this:
const carrier<point> p1(10,10); // make p1 const to stop people changing it
showPoint(p1); // calls a function that expects a point,
showPoint(p1.value); // access the point directly
You can use template specialization for the T* type and rewrite the methods to suite pointers. You can do something like:
template<typename T>
class ObjectCarrier<T*>
{
public:
const T* item() const
{
return item_;
}
void setItem(T* item)
{
item_ = item;
}
private:
T* item_;
};
There is a design patern that is possibly relevant to this - Memento.
A bit off topic, but bear in mind that as soon as you start newing objects up inside your class, you'll need a way to manage the memory. I'd suggest using an std::auto_ptr at the least. You'll also need to provide a copy constructor and an assignment operator, when using std::auto_ptr.
It might be possible to hold the object by value and still defer its construction with the use of placement new and something like the following:
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
template <class T>
class ObjectCarrier
{
public:
ObjectCarrier(): ref(0) {}
ObjectCarrier(const ObjectCarrier& other): ref(0)
{
set_data(other.ref);
}
~ObjectCarrier()
{
clear();
}
const ObjectCarrier& operator = (const ObjectCarrier& other)
{
if (other.empty())
clear();
else
set_data(other.ref);
return *this;
}
void set(const T& value)
{
set_value(value);
}
const T& get() const
{
assert(!empty() && "No object being carried");
return *ref;
}
bool empty() const
{
return ref == 0;
}
void clear()
{
if (!empty()) {
ref->~T();
ref = 0;
}
}
private:
char data[sizeof(T)];
T* ref;
void set_value(const T& value)
{
if (!empty()) {
*ref = value;
}
else {
ref = new (data) T(value);
}
}
void set_data(const T* value)
{
if (value) {
set_value(*value);
}
}
};
int main()
{
ObjectCarrier<int> i;
ObjectCarrier<int> j(i);
i = j;
i.set(10);
std::cout << i.get() << '\n';
j = i;
i.set(20);
std::cout << i.get() << ' ' << j.get() << ' ' << ObjectCarrier<int>(i).get() << '\n';
}
However, I would somewhat question the usefulness of this class. Perhaps the only purpose it could have, would be to act as Boost.Optional.
But if you don't want the class to be able to not hold a value, just give it a parametrized constructor:
template<typename T>
class ObjectCarrier
{
public:
ObjectCarrier(const T& value = T()):
item_(value)
{
}
const T& item() const
{
return item_;
}
void setItem(T& item)
{
item_ = item;
}
private:
T item_;
};
(It's just that this class seems rather useless, unless perhaps as a facade for code that expects variables to have item and setItem methods, rather than, say, an assignment operator.)
boost::optional does something very similar to this (also boost::any, but nevermind).
You can check out how its implemented at: http://cplusplus.co.il/2009/12/04/boost-optional-and-its-internals/ and don't worry - it's pretty straightforward.