The below given code is taken from LevelDB. I am giving two blocks of code for better understanding. I am unable to understand what is happening.
ThreadState is a structure and I have written here to make it easy for the reader.
struct ThreadState {
int tid; // 0..n-1 when running in n threads
Random rand; // Has different seeds for different threads
Stats stats;
SharedState* shared;
ThreadState(int index)
: tid(index),
rand(1000 + index) {
}
};
Is the marked code below an object instantiation of class Benchmark? What is happening in the marked code below?
void Run() {
PrintHeader();
Open();
const char* benchmarks = FLAGS_benchmarks;
while (benchmarks != NULL) {
{
//code ommitted
}
// Reset parameters that may be overriddden bwlow
***void (Benchmark::*method)(ThreadState*) = NULL;*** // What does this code line mean? // Benchmark is a class.
bool fresh_db = false;
int num_threads = FLAGS_threads;
if (name == Slice("fillseq")) {
fresh_db = true;
method = &Benchmark::WriteSeq;
}
If required, I can give detailed implementation of Benchmark as well.
Thanks a lot for the help!
void (Benchmark::*method)(ThreadState*) = NULL;
// What does this code line mean?
// Benchmark is a class.
The above is a pointer to a member function. Since member functions are not like regular functions (they can only be called on a valid object), you cannot take their address it the same way you would for a free function.
Therefore the above syntax is introduced. It is similar to a regular function pointer except the class specifier Benchmark::. This is essentially the type of the implicit this pointer.
In your case, method is a pointer to a member function that takes ThreadState* as a parameter, and has a void return type. The reason for using it is most probably to simplify the call. First, and based on various parameters, a member function is chosen to be called, and its "address" stored in method. After all the checks are done, there is only a single call to the chosen function via the pointer to member.
Incidentally, &Benchmark::WriteSeq is how the code obtains the "address" of the member function WriteSeq. You must use the address-of operator on the qualified function name.
Related
I haven't used C++ in ages. Between what I've forgotten and what has changed in C++ over time, I'm really banging my head against the wall trying to do something that would be trivially easy in JavaScript, or any other language where functions are objects, and not just simple pointers.
I think I understand the basic problem: A class member function only exists in once place in memory (there isn't a different copy of it for each class instance). The only way the function knows what "this" is is because an instance pointer is passed along as an invisible first argument to every function call. A plain-old C-style callback isn't going to know anything about passing that instance pointer.
What I need is a new function that is somehow bound to my class instance, one which knows how to pass "this" along to the member function. That's the function I need to use as a callback.
But I don't know for sure how to dynamically create such a function. I think the code below is on the right track (except for casting pointer types), but it does bother me a bit because it seems like that there'd have to be some dynamic memory allocation going on, and if so, some way to track that allocation and do clean-up later.
class SignalMonitor {
int dataPin;
unsigned short timings[RING_BUFFER_SIZE];
unsigned long lastSignalChange = 0;
int dataIndex = 0;
int syncCount = 0;
void signalHasChanged();
public:
SignalMonitor(int);
};
SignalMonitor::SignalMonitor(int dataPin) {
this->dataPin = dataPin;
function<void()> callback = bind(&SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged, this);
wiringPiISR(dataPin, INT_EDGE_BOTH, callback);
}
void SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged() {
unsigned long now = micros();
int duration = (int) min(now - this->lastSignalChange, 10000ul);
this->lastSignalChange = now;
cout << duration << '\n';
}
I feel like this is close to what I want, but I'm getting this error:
acu-rite-433Mhz-reader.cpp:58:72: error: invalid cast from type ‘std::function<void()>’ to type ‘void*’
wiringPiISR(dataPin, INT_EDGE_BOTH, reinterpret_cast<void *>(callback));
^
Here's the call signature of the function I'm trying to pass this callback to:
int wiringPiISR (int pin, int edgeType, void (*function)(void))
I've found a number of similar issues discussed when searching on this topic, but they either don't quite match what I'm trying to do, or assume much more familiarity with C++ than I currently possess. (All I remember about function pointer types is that they can get hellishly ugly very quickly!)
I tried to use lambda function as a solution, but that led to an error (besides a type mismatch error) about something being "temporary", which I'm assuming meant that the lambda function's scope was temporary.
This is a far from ideal solution (I'm beginning to think there are no ideal solutions here), but it works for me in this particular case where there aren't likely to be very many instances of my SignalMonitor class in use at the same time.
First, I turned my signalHasChanged class method into a static method that takes an instance as an argument. (I could have kept the method as a class method by going through some hairy type-casting, but it wasn't worth it.)
Then I made ten almost-identical indirect callback functions:
void smCallback0() { SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged(monitors[0]); }
void smCallback1() { SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged(monitors[1]); }
void smCallback2() { SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged(monitors[2]); }
void smCallback3() { SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged(monitors[3]); }
void smCallback4() { SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged(monitors[4]); }
void smCallback5() { SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged(monitors[5]); }
void smCallback6() { SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged(monitors[6]); }
void smCallback7() { SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged(monitors[7]); }
void smCallback8() { SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged(monitors[8]); }
void smCallback9() { SignalMonitor::signalHasChanged(monitors[9]); }
Then I stuck all of those functions into an array:
void (*_smCallbacks[MAX_MONITORS])() = {
smCallback0, smCallback1, smCallback2, smCallback3, smCallback4,
smCallback5, smCallback6, smCallback7, smCallback8, smCallback9
};
Along with the monitors array, which is an array of SignalHandler pointers, this gives me ten available callback slots. (_smCallbacks is copied into smCallbacks as a way to get around foreward reference problems.)
The init method for SignalMonitor simply searches for an available slot, plugs itself in, then sets the callback:
void SignalMonitor::init() {
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_MONITORS; ++i) {
if (monitors[i] == NULL) {
callbackIndex = i;
monitors[i] = this;
break;
}
}
if (callbackIndex < 0)
throw "Maximum number of SignalMonitor instances reached";
wiringPiISR(dataPin, INT_EDGE_BOTH, smCallbacks[callbackIndex]);
}
There's also a destructor to free up the callback slots:
SignalMonitor::~SignalMonitor() {
if (callbackIndex >= 0)
monitors[callbackIndex] = NULL;
}
It may help to consider the traditional way of handling a similar issue. Other APIs have been designed where instead of void(*function)(void), wiringPiISR would expect a function void(*function)(void *). This allows the use of
static void signalHasChanged(void *p) {
static_cast<SignalMonitor*>(p)->signalHasChanged();
}
This is not a general solution, but because Raspberry Pi has a limited number of GPIO pins, and you can't have more callback functions than you have pins, you might be able to create one callback function per pin. Then, you need a global data structure that maps the interrupt pin to which SignalMonitor instance (or instances) it should signal. The constructor would register the 'this' object to a specific pin, then set the appropriate callback function based on the pin.
The callback functions would be able to pass a pin argument to a general function, which could then look up the specific SignalMonitor instance and call a class function.
I wouldn't want to do it for 1000 pins, 1000 instances, but this hack should work for anything running on a Pi.
How can I calculate a hash/checksum/fingerprint of an object in c++?
Requirements:
The function must be 'injective'(*). In other words, there should be no two different input objects, that return the same hash/checksum/fingerprint.
Background:
I am trying to come up with a simple pattern for checking whether or not an entity object has been changed since it was constructed. (In order to know which objects need to be updated in the database).
Note that I specifically do not want to mark the object as changed in my setters or anywhere else.
I am considering the following pattern: In short, every entity object that should be persisted, has a member function "bool is_changed()". Changed, in this context, means changed since the objects' constructor was called.
Note: My motivation for all this is to avoid the boilerplate code that comes with marking objects as clean/dirty or doing a member by member comparison. In other words, reduce risk of human error.
(Warning: psudo c++ code ahead. I have not tried compiling it).
class Foo {
private:
std::string my_string;
// Assume the "fingerprint" is of type long.
long original_fingerprint;
long current_fingerprint()
{
// *** Suggestions on which algorithm to use here? ***
}
public:
Foo(const std::string& my_string) :
my_string(my_string)
{
original_fingerprint = current_fingerprint();
}
bool is_changed() const
{
// If new calculation of fingerprint is different from the one
// calculated in the constructor, then the object has
// been changed in some way.
return current_fingerprint() != original_fingerprint;
}
void set_my_string(const std::string& new_string)
{
my_string = new_string;
}
}
void client_code()
{
auto foo = Foo("Initial string");
// should now return **false** because
// the object has not yet been changed:
foo.is_changed();
foo.set_my_string("Changed string");
// should now return **true** because
// the object has been changed:
foo.is_changed();
}
(*) In practice, not necessarily in theory (like uuids are not unique in theory).
You can use the CRC32 algorithm from Boost. Feed it with the memory locations of the data you want to checksum. You could use a hash for this, but hashes are cryptographic functions intended to guard against intentional data corruption and are slower. A CRC performs better.
For this example, I've added another data member to Foo:
int my_integer;
And this is how you would checksum both my_string and my_integer:
#include <boost/crc.hpp>
// ...
long current_fingerprint()
{
boost::crc_32_type crc32;
crc32.process_bytes(my_string.data(), my_string.length());
crc32.process_bytes(&my_integer, sizeof(my_integer));
return crc32.checksum();
}
However, now we're left with the issue of two objects having the same fingerprint if my_string and my_integer are equal. To fix this, we should include the address of the object in the CRC, since C++ guarantees that different objects will have different addresses.
One would think we can use:
process_bytes(&this, sizeof(this));
to do it, but we can't since this is an rvalue and thus we can't take its address. So we need to store the address in a variable instead:
long current_fingerprint()
{
boost::crc_32_type crc32;
void* this_ptr = this;
crc32.process_bytes(&this_ptr, sizeof(this_ptr));
crc32.process_bytes(my_string.data(), my_string.length());
crc32.process_bytes(&my_integer, sizeof(my_integer));
return crc32.checksum();
}
Such a function does not exist, at least not in the context that you are requesting.
The STL provides hash functions for basic types (std::hash), and you could use these to implement a hash function for your objects using any reasonable hashing algorithm.
However, you seem to be looking for an injective function, which causes a problem. Essentially, to have an injective function, it would be necessary to have an output of size greater or equal to that of the object you are considering, since otherwise (from the pigeon hole principle) there would be two inputs that give the same output. Given that, the most sensible option would be to just do a straight-up comparison of the object to some sort of reference object.
A short purely technical question:
If I have an uncertain amount of overlapping (time-wise) instances of the class below. Is it and how is it ensured, that the "this" in "call_back_when_done" belongs to the same "this" as it was in "Start"?
class MyClass{
int ident = -1;
bool ready = false;
void Start(string url){
ident = aStaticClass.DoSomethingAndForkThread(url, callback_when_done);
}
void call_back_when_done(){
ready = true;
}
}
e.g.:
for (int i=0; i < 3; i++)
new MyClass().Start(<aURL>);
Thank You
At first, you can bind the function to "this" like described here using currying : (How) is it possible to bind/rebind a method to work with a delegate of a different signature?
I would prefer a lambda function for your example case like described here : C# Lambdas and "this" variable scope
Lambda functions are bound to the scope of the "this" context where they are created. Members of your surrounding Class are automatically visible to the Lambda function. Using a Lambda function you'll get shorter code which can also better optimized by the compiler.
It is guaranteed.
When you pass callback_when_done to DoSomethingAndForkThread in Start, you are not only passing the raw function pointer (like you would in C++ with &MyClass::callback_when_done, but some kind of tuple consisting of the method to call and the object on which the method should be called (this).
If you like it more explicit you can also write a closure manually:
void Start(string url) {
var that = this; // that get's captured by the closure
ident = aStaticClass.DoSomethingAndForkThread(url, () => that.callback_when_done());
}
I am learning C++ and very new at using classes, and I am getting very confused in trying to use them. I am trying to convert my existing code (which used structs) so that it uses classes - so while I know what I am trying to do I don't know if I'm doing it correctly.
I was told that when using functions from the class, I first need to instantiate an object of the class. So what I have tried (a snippet) in my main function is:
int main()// line 1
{
string message_fr_client = "test"; //line2
msgInfo message_processed; //line 3
message_processed.incMsgClass(message_fr_client); //line 4
if (!message_processed.priority_check(qos_levels, message_processed)) //line 5
cout << "failure: priority level out of bounds\n"; //line 6
return 0; //line 7
}
Could you help me clarify if my following assumptions are correct? The compiler is not showing any error and so I don't know if it is error-free, or if there are ones lurking beneath.
At line 4, is the function incMsgClass being performed on the string message_fr_client and returning the resultant (and modified) message_processed?
At line 5, the function priority_check is being performed on the message_processed and returning a boolean?
In my class definition, I have a function getPath that is meant to modify the value of nodePath - is it just a matter of using message_processed.getPath(/*arguments*/)?
I haven't included the body of the functions because I know they work - I would just like to find out how the class functions interact. Please let me know if I can be clearer - just trying to clear up some confusion here.
Here is my class:
#ifndef clientMsgHandling_H
#define clientMsgHandling_H
#include <list>
#include <map>
#include <queue>
class msgInfo
{
public:
msgInfo();
msgInfo(int, int, int, std::string, std::list<int>);
/*classifying message*/
msgInfo incMsgClass(std::string original_msg);
/*message error checks*/
bool priority_check(int syst_priority, msgInfo msg); //check that message is within qos levels
bool route_check(std::map<std::pair<int, int>, int> route_table, msgInfo msg); //check that route exists
void getPath(msgInfo msg, std::map<std::pair<int, int>, int> route_info, int max_hop);
private:
int source_id;
int dest_id;
int priority;
std::string payload;
std::list<int> nodePath;
};
#endif
While it may compile (and even run), there are a few oddities with the code as shown:-
First off, class methods know which object they are operating on - so your priority_check and route_check methods probably don't need msgInfo as a parameter.,
for example, your old non-class function might be like this
bool priority_check(int p, msgInfo msg)
{
return msg.priority < p;
}
But the new one should look like this:
bool msgInfo::priority_check(int p)
{
return priority < p;
}
Also, incMsgClass is a bit odd, as it's a non-static class method that returns a msgInfo object. It's difficult to tell without understanding what it's supposed to do, but it seems possible that this function should actually be a constructor, rather than a regular method.
One other thing is that you're currently passing a msgInfo by value to those methods. So if the method needed to modify the passed msgInfo, it would not have any effect. It's generally better to pass objects by reference or const reference to other methods. So, back to the previous non-method example, it should really be this.
bool priority_check(int p, const msgInfo &msg)
...
But, as I said, you probably don't need the msgInfo parameters anyway.
At line 4, is the function incMsgClass being performed on the string message_fr_client
Yes
and returning the resultant (and modified) message_processed?
Whatever it's returning, you're ignoring the return value. It can modify the object itself, yes, because the function is not const.
At line 5, the function priority_check is being performed on the message_processed and returning a boolean?
Yes
In my class definition, I have a function getPath that is meant to modify the value of nodePath - is it just a matter of using message_processed.getPath(/arguments/)?
If a member function is intended to modify one of the class members, it's just a matter of not marking that function const
Hard to tell without implementation-details, but here we go:
I. You are passing a std::string as value (C++ is call-by-value by default), so you get a copy of the std::string in your method. If you want to work on the object you passed and manipulate it, use a reference on the object, like
msgInfo incMsgClass(std::string& original_msg); // notice the ampersand
then you can change your signature to
void incMsgClass(std::string& original_msg);
as you don't need to return the std::string you passed.
II. Yes, at least according to your signature
III. Can see a node_path only as a member.
For all your questions, see C++-FAQ.
Your basic assumptions are correct.
message_processed.incMsgClass(message_fr_client); //line 4
This line is not correct. The function you call returns msgInfo which is simply dropped. You should assign it to something. But it is not as it is usually done. You should make it a constructor of msgInfo, like
class msgInfo
{
public:
msgInfo(std::string original_msg);
...
}
Then you could call it like this
msgInfo message_processed(message_fr_client);
That line would create a msgInfo that is already properly initialized.
There is another pattern for creating class instances - static creating function. In your case you could mark incMsgClass static and then call it like
msgInfo message_processed = msgInfo.incMsgClass(message_fr_client);
I seriously doubt you need this pattern here, so I'd advise to move to constructor.
As of other functions, I see no problems there. Just note that all member functions not marked as const can modify the object they are called on. So, you don't need to pass this object explicitly. For functions a pointer to the object they are called on is available by name this. Also the functions can access all class variables as if these variables are global for normal (non-member) functions.
Suppose I have a function named caller, which will call a function named callee:
void caller()
{
callee();
}
Now caller might be called many times in the application, and you want to make sure callee is only called once. (kind of lazy initialization), you could implement it use a flag:
void caller()
{
static bool bFirst = true;
if(bFirst)
{
callee();
bFirst = false;
}
}
My opinion for this is it needs more code, and it needs one more check in every call of function caller.
A better solution to me is as follow: (suppose callee returns int)
void caller()
{
static int ret = callee();
}
But this can't handle the case if callee returns void, my solution is using the comma expression:
void caller()
{
static int ret = (callee(), 1);
}
But the problem with this is that comma expression is not popular used and people may get confused when see this line of code, thus cause problems for maintainance.
Do you have any good idea to make sure a function is only called once?
You could use this:
void caller()
{
static class Once { public: Once(){callee();}} Once_;
}
Thread-safe:
static boost::once_flag flag = BOOST_ONCE_INIT;
boost::call_once([]{callee();}, flag);
You could hide the function through a function pointer.
static void real_function()
{
//do stuff
function = noop_function;
}
static void noop_function()
{
}
int (*function)(void) = real_function;
Callers just call the function which will do the work the first time, and do nothing on any subsequent calls.
Your first variant with a boolean flag bFirst is nothing else that an explict manual implementatuion of what the compiler will do for you implictly in your other variants.
In other words, in a typical implementation in all of the variants you pesented so far there will be an additional check for a boolean flag in the generated machine code. The perfromance of all these variants will be the same (if that's your concern). The extra code in the first variant might look less elegant, but that doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. (Wrap it.)
Anyway, what you have as your first variant is basically how it is normally done (until you start dealing with such issues as multithreading etc.)
Inspired by some people, I think just use a macro to wrap comma expression would also make the intention clear:
#define CALL_ONCE(func) do {static bool dummy = (func, true);} while(0)