Extend auto_ptr to release a C-style object - c++

I want to implement a RAII mechanism for a net-snmp C library struct snmp_pdu object.
That object is created with a method called struct snmp_pdu* snmp_pdu_create(int type) and released with a method void snmp_free_pdu(struct snmp_pdu *obj).
What I have done is extend auto_ptr to call the method libname_free_obj in the destructor. Below is the code:
class auto_snmp_pdu : public std::auto_ptr<snmp_pdu>
{
public:
virtual ~auto_snmp_pdu()
{
snmp_free_pdu(get());
}
};
Is the above correect?
EDIT
I cannot use unique_ptr since I am using an old version of g++ and I am not authorized to update it.

auto_ptr is deprecated and bug-prone. Use unique_ptr with a custom deleter. Here is one implementation:
#include <memory>
extern "C" {
struct snmp_pdu;
struct snmp_pdu* snmp_pdu_create(int type);
void snmp_free_pdu(struct snmp_pdu *obj);
}
struct snmp_pdu_deleter
{
void operator()(snmp_pdu* p) const noexcept {
snmp_free_pdu(p);
}
};
using snmp_pdu_ptr = std::unique_ptr<snmp_pdu, snmp_pdu_deleter>;
snmp_pdu_ptr create_snmp_pdu(int x) {
return snmp_pdu_ptr(snmp_pdu_create(x));
}
int main()
{
auto ptr = create_snmp_pdu(0);
}
but my compiler is pre-c++11
unique_ptr and move semantics are fairly easy to simulate:
#include <utility>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
extern "C" {
struct snmp_pdu {};
void foo(snmp_pdu*) { std::cout << "foo" << std::endl; }
struct snmp_pdu* snmp_pdu_create(int type) {
return (snmp_pdu*)malloc(sizeof(snmp_pdu));
}
void snmp_free_pdu(struct snmp_pdu *obj) {
free(obj);
}
}
struct snmp_pdu_proxy
{
struct mover {
mover(snmp_pdu*& impl_ref) : impl_ref_(impl_ref) {}
snmp_pdu*& impl_ref_;
};
snmp_pdu_proxy(int code)
: impl_(snmp_pdu_create(code))
{}
snmp_pdu_proxy(mover m)
: impl_(0)
{
std::swap(impl_, m.impl_ref_);
}
mover move() {
return mover ( impl_ );
}
snmp_pdu_proxy& operator=(mover m)
{
snmp_pdu_proxy tmp = move();
std::swap(m.impl_ref_, impl_);
return *this;
}
operator snmp_pdu* () const {
return impl_;
}
~snmp_pdu_proxy() {
if(impl_) {
snmp_free_pdu(impl_);
}
}
private:
snmp_pdu_proxy& operator=(const snmp_pdu_proxy&);
snmp_pdu* impl_;
};
int main()
{
snmp_pdu_proxy ptr = snmp_pdu_proxy(0);
snmp_pdu_proxy p2 = ptr.move();
ptr = p2.move();
foo(ptr);
}

If you're using C++03, then you can't use unique_ptr for sure. However, this doesn't justify using auto_ptr. It's a horrible construct and is semantically full of problems. For example, it's copyable, and a copy operation moves the object under it. I can't even start to describe how many problems that will cause.
Just create your own class that will do the deallocation for you with RAII. It's much simpler than you think. Here are a few examples:
On my blog I described a few ways to do this, even with C++03.
This is a SmartHandle class that deallocates anything (unfortunately it's C++11). I use it for HDF5. You can change it to fit C++03 with a functor.
This is a shared_ptr implementation that supports detaching/releasing an object (it's not thread-safe). I created this for a project that works with gcc 4.3.
Take a look at these, and you'll get the idea. You can modify these examples to match your needs.
Good luck!

Related

Create a transparent wrapper class in C++ for a C-style object

I want to implement a class in C++ whose purpose is implementing RAII mechanism for a C-style object.
Then, I need to be able to pass an instance of this class to all the C-style functions that receive the mentioned C-style object as argument. I know that this should be solved with unique_ptr, but I cannot use C++11 for now. Anyway, I would like to understand how this should be made, regardless that there are better solutions.
I have several doubts regarding to which operators I must overload, and the difference beteween some of them.
Below is an example of code with the implementation I have made. I am specially confused with the operators 1 and 2 (what is the difference?)
I want to know if the code I have implemented covers all the use cases, I mean, all the scenarios where the C library could use the object. In addition, I would like to understand the difference between the operators 1 and 2.
C-Style object
// Example: a C-style library called "clib" which use an object called "cobj":
struct cobj {
int n;
};
void clib_create_cobj(struct cobj **obj) {
*obj = (struct cobj*)malloc(sizeof(cobj));
(*obj)->n = 25;
}
void clib_release_cobj(struct cobj *obj) {
free(obj);
}
void clib_doSomething(struct cobj *obj) {
std::cout << obj->n << std::endl;
}
C++ "transparent" wrapper
// My wrapper class for implementing RAII
class CobjWrapper {
public:
CobjWrapper(struct cobj *obj) : m_obj (obj) { }
~CobjWrapper() {
if(m_obj != NULL) {
clib_release_cobj(m_obj);
m_obj = NULL;
}
}
operator struct cobj* () const { // (1)
return m_obj;
}
struct cobj& operator * () { // (2)
return *m_obj;
}
struct cobj** operator & () { // (3)
return &m_obj;
}
struct cobj* operator->() { // (4)
return m_obj;
}
private:
struct cobj *m_obj;
};
The main method
// The main method:
int main() {
struct cobj *obj = NULL;
clib_create_cobj(&obj);
CobjWrapper w(obj);
clib_doSomething(w);
return 0;
}
The above source can be tested here:
http://cpp.sh/8nue3
The following is an implicit cast
operator struct cobj* () const { // (1)
with example usage
CobjWrapper wrapper = /**/;
struct cobj* obj = wrapper;
whereas the following is the unary operator *
struct cobj& operator * () { // (2)
with example usage
CobjWrapper wrapper = /**/;
struct cobj& obj = *wrapper;
BTW, I would completely hide the C struct, something like:
class CobjWrapper {
struct ObjDeleter
{
void operator()(cobj *obj) const { clib_release_cobj(obj); }
};
public:
CobjWrapper()
{
cobj *obj = nullptr;
clib_create_cobj(&obj);
m_obj.reset(obj);
}
void doSomething() { clib_doSomething(m_obj.get()); }
private:
std::unique_ptr<cobj, ObjDeleter> m_obj;
};

Is it possible to boost::bind to a member function of a known class but a (yet) unknown object?

I have read here about how boost:bind works, especially that it - besides other things - generates something like this:
struct unspecified_type
{
... some members ...
return_type operator()(int i) const { return instance->*&klass::member(0, i);
}
Now, I'm looking for something which would allow to add an additional indirection to the instance pointer, so that it ultimatively would look like this:
struct unspecified_type
{
... some members ...
return_type operator()(int i) const { return (*p_instance)->*&klass::member(0, i);
}
and could be used like
MyClass* pmc;
auto mfp = boost::bind(&MyClass::some_func, &pmc);
pmc = new MyClass();
mfp();
pmc = new MyClass();
mfp();
You could use std::bind and std::ref, or their boost equivalent (but since you are using C++11, you may want to use standard classes and functions). So given this class:
#include <iostream>
struct MyClass
{
int x;
MyClass(int x_) : x(x_) { }
void some_func()
{
std::cout << x << std::endl;
}
};
You could pass the pointer on which the member function is to be invoked wrapped in an std::reference_wrapper. Also, avoid using new (and delete!) and prefer using smart pointers for modeling object ownership:
#include <functional>
#include <memory>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
std::shared_ptr<MyClass> pmc;
auto mfp = std::bind(&MyClass::some_func, std::ref(pmc));
pmc = std::make_shared<MyClass>(42);
mfp();
pmc = std::make_shared<MyClass>(1729);
mfp();
}
Here is a live example.
Technically, you can extend boost::bind (but not std::bind) using get_pointer function:
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
struct MyClass
{
void some_func()
{}
};
namespace boost
{
template<class T>
T *get_pointer(T **t)
{
return *t;
}
}
int main()
{
MyClass *pmc;
auto mfp = boost::bind(&MyClass::some_func, &pmc);
pmc = new MyClass();
mfp();
pmc = new MyClass();
mfp();
}

Prevent a class from being freed

I need to pass a pointer to a class so some code I don't control. This code automatically free()s the pointer when it is done, but I need the class later. I hoped I could just make a 'wrapper' class that would keep the class from being deallocated without actually preventing the code from accessing it, but virtual calls don't work.
template <class T>
class PointerWrapper:public T
{
public:
T* p;
PointerWrapper(T *ptr)
{
p=ptr;
}
~PointerWrapper(void)
{
}
T* operator->() const
{
return p;
}
T& operator*() const
{
return *p;
}
};
void codeIDontControl(Example *ex)
{
ex->virtualfunction();
delete ex;
}
void myCode()
{
Example *ex=new Example();
codeIDontControl(ex);
do something with ex //doesn't work because ex has been freed
codeIDontControl(new PointerWrapper<Example>(ex));
do something with ex //ex hasn't been freed, but the changes made to it via
// Example::virtualfunction() in codeIDontControl() aren't there anymore
}
Basically, ex->virtualfunction() calls the virtual function in PointerWrapper itself instead of the virtual function in PointerWrapper->p. It seems that it's ignoring the -> operator?
Now, I don't need to use a PointerWrapper-esque class if there's a different way to do this, but it was all I could think of...
I can't modify Example either, but I can subclass it
You should provide Forwarder class - which redirects virtual calls to stored pointer. Freeing of forwarder class will not cause releasing of pointee. This approach does NOT need to do copy (which can be expensive/may be not implemented/or even not make sense):
struct Forwarder : Example
{
Example *impl;
Forwarder(Example *i) : impl(i) {}
void virtualfunction()
{
impl->virtualfunction();
}
};
Full code:
live demo:
#include <iostream>
#include <ostream>
using namespace std;
struct Example
{
virtual void virtualfunction()=0;
virtual ~Example() {}
};
struct Implmenetation : Example
{
bool alive;
Implmenetation() : alive(true) {}
void virtualfunction()
{
cout << "Implmenetation::virtualfunction alive=" << alive << endl;
}
~Implmenetation()
{
alive=false;
cout << "Implmenetation::~Implmenetation" << endl;
}
};
struct Forwarder : Example
{
Example *impl;
Forwarder(Example *i) : impl(i) {}
void virtualfunction()
{
impl->virtualfunction();
}
};
void codeIDontControl(Example *ex)
{
ex->virtualfunction();
delete ex;
}
void myCode()
{
Implmenetation impl;
codeIDontControl(new Forwarder(&impl));
//do something with ex //doesn't work because ex has been freed
impl.virtualfunction();
}
int main()
{
myCode();
}
Output is:
Implmenetation::virtualfunction alive=1
Implmenetation::virtualfunction alive=1
Implmenetation::~Implmenetation
It's bad design, really. Only the allocator should be allowed to free memory. Functions like this are dangerous, as they leave with with dangling pointers.
This is just off the top of my head, maybe you could try something like this? It's not a safe idea, but if someone implemented it I would be interested to know what happens.
class Foo
{
Foo(Foo* copy) : m_copy(copy) {}
~Foo() { if(m_copy) { *m_copy = *this; } } // Use copy constructor to create copy on destuction.
Foo* m_copy;
}
Foo copy(NULL);
Foo* original = new Foo(&copy);
MethodThatDeletes(original);
// Original should be destroyed, and made a copy in the process.
original = NULL;
// Copy should be a copy of the original at it's last know state.
copy;
You are providing a Example* to codeIDontControl. The overloaded operator-> on PointerWrapper is an for the PointerWrapper type not the Example* type or even the PointerWrapper* type (i.e. for a value or reference of that type not a pointer to that type).
Since the function you need to call isn't controlled by you, you will need to provide a complete wrapper of the type it expects as a wrapper over the instance you wish to control the lifetime of.

Will a boost smart pointer help me?

i am using Xerces to do some xml writing.
here's a couple of lines extracted from my code:
DOMLSSerializer *serializer = ((DOMImplementationLS*)implementation)->createLSSerializer();
serializer->release();
Is there a boost smart pointer that i can use, so i can avoid calling serializer->release(); as it's not exception safe. The problem as i see it is that smart pointers can only call delete on your pointer object, could it be customised to call release?
thanks
Yes, smart pointers can call a custom "deleter" function object.
#include <iostream>
#include <tr1/memory>
struct Example {
void release() { std::cout << "Example::release() called\n"; }
};
struct ExampleDeleter {
void operator()(Example* e) { e->release(); }
};
int main()
{
{
std::tr1::shared_ptr<Example> p ( new Example, ExampleDeleter() );
}
std::cout << " see?\n";
}
(same for boost: see the shared_ptr(Y * p, D d); constructor.)
Yes, boost::shared_ptr can be used with a custom deleter functor (as shown by Cubbi) or a deleter function:
void my_deleter(DOMLSSerializer* s) {
s->release();
}
// ...
boost::shared_ptr<DOMLSSerializer> serializer(foo->createLSSerializer(), my_deleter);
Don't know why people write their own wrapper that way any more #Cubbi
As answered to make shared ptr not use delete
shared_ptr<DOMLSSerializer> serializer(
((DOMImplementationLS*)implementation)->createLSSerializer(),
std::mem_fun(&DOMLSSerializer::release) );
If you just need a tiny RAII class then you could write the helper class yourself. It's so small that it barely pulls its own weight (let alone justifies pulling in a library):
class DOMLSSerializerOwner {
public:
DOMLSSSerializerOwner( DOMLSSerializer *serializer ) : m_serializer( serializer ) { }
~DOMLSSerializerOwner() { m_serializer->release(); }
operator DOMLSSerializer*() { return m_serializer; }
private:
DOMLSSerializerOwner( const DOMLSSerializerOwner &other ); // disabled
void operator=( const DOMLSSerializerOwner &rhs ); // disabled
DOMLSSerializer *m_serializer;
};
Then you can make your code read:
void f()
{
DOMLSSerializerOwner serializer = ((DOMImplementationLS*)implementation)->createLSSerializer();
serializer->doThis();
serializer->doThis();
// Look Ma: no release() call; 'serializer' does it automatically when going out of scope
}

How to avoid successive deallocations/allocations in C++?

Consider the following code:
class A
{
B* b; // an A object owns a B object
A() : b(NULL) { } // we don't know what b will be when constructing A
void calledVeryOften(…)
{
if (b)
delete b;
b = new B(param1, param2, param3, param4);
}
};
My goal: I need to maximize performance, which, in this case, means minimizing the amount of memory allocations.
The obvious thing to do here is to change B* b; to B b;. I see two problems with this approach:
I need to initialize b in the constructor. Since I don't know what b will be, this means I need to pass dummy values to B's constructor. Which, IMO, is ugly.
In calledVeryOften(), I'll have to do something like this: b = B(…), which is wrong for two reasons:
The destructor of b won't be called.
A temporary instance of B will be constructed, then copied into b, then the destructor of the temporary instance will be called. The copy and the destructor call could be avoided. Worse, calling the destructor could very well result in undesired behavior.
So what solutions do I have to avoid using new? Please keep in mind that:
I only have control over A. I don't have control over B, and I don't have control over the users of A.
I want to keep the code as clean and readable as possible.
I liked Klaim's answer, so I wrote this up real fast. I don't claim perfect correctness but it looks pretty good to me. (i.e., the only testing it has is the sample main below)
It's a generic lazy-initializer. The space for the object is allocated once, and the object starts at null. You can then create, over-writing previous objects, with no new memory allocations.
It implements all the necessary constructors, destructor, copy/assignment, swap, yadda-yadda. Here you go:
#include <cassert>
#include <new>
template <typename T>
class lazy_object
{
public:
// types
typedef T value_type;
typedef const T const_value_type;
typedef value_type& reference;
typedef const_value_type& const_reference;
typedef value_type* pointer;
typedef const_value_type* const_pointer;
// creation
lazy_object(void) :
mObject(0),
mBuffer(::operator new(sizeof(T)))
{
}
lazy_object(const lazy_object& pRhs) :
mObject(0),
mBuffer(::operator new(sizeof(T)))
{
if (pRhs.exists())
{
mObject = new (buffer()) T(pRhs.get());
}
}
lazy_object& operator=(lazy_object pRhs)
{
pRhs.swap(*this);
return *this;
}
~lazy_object(void)
{
destroy();
::operator delete(mBuffer);
}
// need to make multiple versions of this.
// variadic templates/Boost.PreProccesor
// would help immensely. For now, I give
// two, but it's easy to make more.
void create(void)
{
destroy();
mObject = new (buffer()) T();
}
template <typename A1>
void create(const A1 pA1)
{
destroy();
mObject = new (buffer()) T(pA1);
}
void destroy(void)
{
if (exists())
{
mObject->~T();
mObject = 0;
}
}
void swap(lazy_object& pRhs)
{
std::swap(mObject, pRhs.mObject);
std::swap(mBuffer, pRhs.mBuffer);
}
// access
reference get(void)
{
return *get_ptr();
}
const_reference get(void) const
{
return *get_ptr();
}
pointer get_ptr(void)
{
assert(exists());
return mObject;
}
const_pointer get_ptr(void) const
{
assert(exists());
return mObject;
}
void* buffer(void)
{
return mBuffer;
}
// query
const bool exists(void) const
{
return mObject != 0;
}
private:
// members
pointer mObject;
void* mBuffer;
};
// explicit swaps for generality
template <typename T>
void swap(lazy_object<T>& pLhs, lazy_object<T>& pRhs)
{
pLhs.swap(pRhs);
}
// if the above code is in a namespace, don't put this in it!
// specializations in global namespace std are allowed.
namespace std
{
template <typename T>
void swap(lazy_object<T>& pLhs, lazy_object<T>& pRhs)
{
pLhs.swap(pRhs);
}
}
// test use
#include <iostream>
int main(void)
{
// basic usage
lazy_object<int> i;
i.create();
i.get() = 5;
std::cout << i.get() << std::endl;
// asserts (not created yet)
lazy_object<double> d;
std::cout << d.get() << std::endl;
}
In your case, just create a member in your class: lazy_object<B> and you're done. No manual releases or making copy-constructors, destructors, etc. Everything is taken care of in your nice, small re-usable class. :)
EDIT
Removed the need for vector, should save a bit of space and what-not.
EDIT2
This uses aligned_storage and alignment_of to use the stack instead of heap. I used boost, but this functionality exists in both TR1 and C++0x. We lose the ability to copy, and therefore swap.
#include <boost/type_traits/aligned_storage.hpp>
#include <cassert>
#include <new>
template <typename T>
class lazy_object_stack
{
public:
// types
typedef T value_type;
typedef const T const_value_type;
typedef value_type& reference;
typedef const_value_type& const_reference;
typedef value_type* pointer;
typedef const_value_type* const_pointer;
// creation
lazy_object_stack(void) :
mObject(0)
{
}
~lazy_object_stack(void)
{
destroy();
}
// need to make multiple versions of this.
// variadic templates/Boost.PreProccesor
// would help immensely. For now, I give
// two, but it's easy to make more.
void create(void)
{
destroy();
mObject = new (buffer()) T();
}
template <typename A1>
void create(const A1 pA1)
{
destroy();
mObject = new (buffer()) T(pA1);
}
void destroy(void)
{
if (exists())
{
mObject->~T();
mObject = 0;
}
}
// access
reference get(void)
{
return *get_ptr();
}
const_reference get(void) const
{
return *get_ptr();
}
pointer get_ptr(void)
{
assert(exists());
return mObject;
}
const_pointer get_ptr(void) const
{
assert(exists());
return mObject;
}
void* buffer(void)
{
return mBuffer.address();
}
// query
const bool exists(void) const
{
return mObject != 0;
}
private:
// types
typedef boost::aligned_storage<sizeof(T),
boost::alignment_of<T>::value> storage_type;
// members
pointer mObject;
storage_type mBuffer;
// non-copyable
lazy_object_stack(const lazy_object_stack& pRhs);
lazy_object_stack& operator=(lazy_object_stack pRhs);
};
// test use
#include <iostream>
int main(void)
{
// basic usage
lazy_object_stack<int> i;
i.create();
i.get() = 5;
std::cout << i.get() << std::endl;
// asserts (not created yet)
lazy_object_stack<double> d;
std::cout << d.get() << std::endl;
}
And there we go.
Simply reserve the memory required for b (via a pool or by hand) and reuse it each time you delete/new instead of reallocating each time.
Example :
class A
{
B* b; // an A object owns a B object
bool initialized;
public:
A() : b( malloc( sizeof(B) ) ), initialized(false) { } // We reserve memory for b
~A() { if(initialized) destroy(); free(b); } // release memory only once we don't use it anymore
void calledVeryOften(…)
{
if (initialized)
destroy();
create();
}
private:
void destroy() { b->~B(); initialized = false; } // hand call to the destructor
void create( param1, param2, param3, param4 )
{
b = new (b) B( param1, param2, param3, param4 ); // in place new : only construct, don't allocate but use the memory that the provided pointer point to
initialized = true;
}
};
In some cases a Pool or ObjectPool could be a better implementation of the same idea.
The construction/destruction cost will then only be dependante on the constructor and destructor of the B class.
How about allocating the memory for B once (or for it's biggest possible variant) and using placement new?
A would store char memB[sizeof(BiggestB)]; and a B*. Sure, you'd need to manually call the destructors, but no memory would be allocated/deallocated.
void* p = memB;
B* b = new(p) SomeB();
...
b->~B(); // explicit destructor call when needed.
If B correctly implements its copy assignment operator then b = B(...) should not call any destructor on b. It is the most obvious solution to your problem.
If, however, B cannot be appropriately 'default' initialized you could do something like this. I would only recommend this approach as a last resort as it is very hard to get safe. Untested, and very probably with corner case exception bugs:
// Used to clean up raw memory of construction of B fails
struct PlacementHelper
{
PlacementHelper() : placement(NULL)
{
}
~PlacementHelper()
{
operator delete(placement);
}
void* placement;
};
void calledVeryOften(....)
{
PlacementHelper hp;
if (b == NULL)
{
hp.placement = operator new(sizeof(B));
}
else
{
hp.placement = b;
b->~B();
b = NULL; // We can't let b be non-null but point at an invalid B
}
// If construction throws, hp will clean up the raw memory
b = new (placement) B(param1, param2, param3, param4);
// Stop hp from cleaning up; b points at a valid object
hp.placement = NULL;
}
A quick test of Martin York's assertion that this is a premature optimisation, and that new/delete are optimised well beyond the ability of mere programmers to improve. Obviously the questioner will have to time his own code to see whether avoiding new/delete helps him, but it seems to me that for certain classes and uses it will make a big difference:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int g_construct = 0;
int g_destruct = 0;
struct A {
std::vector<int> vec;
A (int a, int b) : vec((a*b) % 2) { ++g_construct; }
~A() {
++g_destruct;
}
};
int main() {
const int times = 10*1000*1000;
#if DYNAMIC
std::cout << "dynamic\n";
A *x = new A(1,3);
for (int i = 0; i < times; ++i) {
delete x;
x = new A(i,3);
}
#else
std::cout << "automatic\n";
char x[sizeof(A)];
A* yzz = new (x) A(1,3);
for (int i = 0; i < times; ++i) {
yzz->~A();
new (x) A(i,3);
}
#endif
std::cout << g_construct << " constructors and " << g_destruct << " destructors\n";
}
$ g++ allocperf.cpp -oallocperf -O3 -DDYNAMIC=0 -g && time ./allocperf
automatic
10000001 constructors and 10000000 destructors
real 0m7.718s
user 0m7.671s
sys 0m0.030s
$ g++ allocperf.cpp -oallocperf -O3 -DDYNAMIC=1 -g && time ./allocperf
dynamic
10000001 constructors and 10000000 destructors
real 0m15.188s
user 0m15.077s
sys 0m0.047s
This is roughly what I expected: the GMan-style (destruct/placement new) code takes twice as long, and is presumably doing twice as much allocation. If the vector member of A is replaced with an int, then the GMan-style code takes a fraction of a second. That's GCC 3.
$ g++-4 allocperf.cpp -oallocperf -O3 -DDYNAMIC=1 -g && time ./allocperf
dynamic
10000001 constructors and 10000000 destructors
real 0m5.969s
user 0m5.905s
sys 0m0.030s
$ g++-4 allocperf.cpp -oallocperf -O3 -DDYNAMIC=0 -g && time ./allocperf
automatic
10000001 constructors and 10000000 destructors
real 0m2.047s
user 0m1.983s
sys 0m0.000s
This I'm not so sure about, though: now the delete/new takes three times as long as the destruct/placement new version.
[Edit: I think I've figured it out - GCC 4 is faster on the 0-sized vectors, in effect subtracting a constant time from both versions of the code. Changing (a*b)%2 to (a*b)%2+1 restores the 2:1 time ratio, with 3.7s vs 7.5]
Note that I've not taken any special steps to correctly align the stack array, but printing the address shows it's 16-aligned.
Also, -g doesn't affect the timings. I left it in accidentally after I was looking at the objdump to check that -O3 hadn't completely removed the loop. That pointers called yzz because searching for "y" didn't go quite as well as I'd hoped. But I've just re-run without it.
Are you sure that memory allocation is the bottleneck you think it is? Is B's constructor trivially fast?
If memory allocation is the real problem, then placement new or some of the other solutions here might well help.
If the types and ranges of the param[1..4] are reasonable, and the B constructor "heavy", you might also consider using a cached set of B. This presumes you are actually allowed to have more than one at a time, that it does not front a resource for example.
Like the others have already suggested: Try placement new..
Here is a complete example:
#include <new>
#include <stdio.h>
class B
{
public:
int dummy;
B (int arg)
{
dummy = arg;
printf ("C'Tor called\n");
}
~B ()
{
printf ("D'tor called\n");
}
};
void called_often (B * arg)
{
// call D'tor without freeing memory:
arg->~B();
// call C'tor without allocating memory:
arg = new(arg) B(10);
}
int main (int argc, char **args)
{
B test(1);
called_often (&test);
}
I'd go with boost::scoped_ptr here:
class A: boost::noncopyable
{
typedef boost::scoped_ptr<B> b_ptr;
b_ptr pb_;
public:
A() : pb_() {}
void calledVeryOften( /*…*/ )
{
pb_.reset( new B( params )); // old instance deallocated
// safely use *pb_ as reference to instance of B
}
};
No need for hand-crafted destructor, A is non-copyable, as it should be in your original code, not to leak memory on copy/assignment.
I'd suggest to re-think the design though if you need to re-allocate some inner state object very often. Look into Flyweight and State patterns.
Erm, is there some reason you can't do this?
A() : b(new B()) { }
void calledVeryOften(…)
{
b->setValues(param1, param2, param3, param4);
}
(or set them individually, since you don't have access to the B class - those values do have mutator-methods, right?)
Just have a pile of previously used Bs, and re-use them.