I wanna write a class for a binary indexed array,
which use two non-type default template parameter, op and identity.
And need to check the constraint that op(identity,identity) == identity.
My problem is,
I don't to how to specify op, my current solution does not compile.
‘class std::function<T(T, T)>’ is not a valid type for a template non-type parameter
how to to check op(identity,identity) == identity, currently I cannot verify, since failed on step 1, maybe static_assert?
So currently I use below workaround, but then I cannot specify op, eg, std::multiplies<int>.
Can anyone tell me how to achieve the goal?
#include <vector>
#include <functional>
// template <typename T = int, std::function<T(T,T)> op = std::plus<T>(), const T identity = T()>
template <typename T = int, const T identity = T()> // currently workaround
class BIT { // binary indexed array
const std::function<T(T,T)> op = std::plus<T>(); // currently workaround
public:
BIT(std::vector<T> value) : value(value), prefixSum(value.size() + 1, identity) {
for (size_t i = 1; i < prefixSum.size(); ++i) {
incrementNodeByValue(i, value[i-1]);
}
// print(prefixSum,"prefixSum");
}
T getSum(size_t i) {
auto sum = identity;
while (i) {
sum = op(sum, prefixSum(i));
i = firstSmallerAncestor(i);
}
return sum;
}
void incrementNodeByValue(size_t i, T x) {
while (i < prefixSum.size()) {
prefixSum[i] = op(prefixSum[i], x);
i = firstLargerAncestor(i);
}
}
private:
inline size_t firstLargerAncestor(size_t node) { return node + (node & -node); }
inline size_t firstSmallerAncestor(size_t node) { return node & (node - 1); }
std::vector<T> value;
std::vector<T> prefixSum;
};
int main() {
auto vec = std::vector<int> {5,1,15,11,52,28,0};
auto bit = BIT<>(vec);
}
The use of std::function here is a waste and seems to be the source of your confusion.
Note that templates may only be parameterized on typenames and values of integral types (char, int, long, etc). Here you're attempting to parameterize on a value of a std::function instantiation, which isn't an integral type. That said, you don't actually need to parameterize on a value in this case.
Because your constructor doesn't accept an argument to initialize the op member variable nor is it accessible via the interface, I gather it's safe to assume the operator is known at compile-time, is guaranteed immutable, and default constructible.
As such, I declared the op member to be of a parameter type called operation.
#include <functional>
#include <vector>
template< typename T = int,
typename operation = std::plus<T>,
const T identity = T() >
class BIT {
const operation op = operation();
static_assert( operation()(identity, identity) == identity );
std::vector<T> value;
std::vector<T> prefixSum;
inline size_t firstLargerAncestor(size_t node) { return node + (node & -node); }
inline size_t firstSmallerAncestor(size_t node) { return node & (node - 1); }
public:
BIT(std::vector<T> value) :
value(value),
prefixSum(value.size() + 1, identity) {
for (size_t i = 1; i < prefixSum.size(); ++i) {
incrementNodeByValue(i, value[i-1]);
}
}
T getSum(size_t i) {
auto sum = identity;
while (i) {
sum = op(sum, prefixSum(i));
i = firstSmallerAncestor(i);
}
return sum;
}
void incrementNodeByValue(size_t i, T x) {
while (i < prefixSum.size()) {
prefixSum[i] = op(prefixSum[i], x);
i = firstLargerAncestor(i);
}
}
};
live example
As a note, you'll likely want to define an identity template elsewhere to parameterized on an operation and value types to default the third parameter here. As is, it seems you'll almost always be defining all three parameters during instantiation.
Related
I have objects that I need to hash with SHA256. The object has several fields as follows:
class Foo {
// some methods
protected:
std::array<32,int> x;
char y[32];
long z;
}
Is there a way I can directly access the bytes representing the 3 member variables in memory as I would a struct ? These hashes need to be computed as quickly as possible so I want to avoid malloc'ing a new set of bytes and copying to a heap allocated array. Or is the answer to simply embed a struct within the class?
It is critical that I get the exact binary representation of these variables so that the SHA256 comes out exactly the same given that the 3 variables are equal (so I can't have any extra padding bytes etc included going into the hash function)
Most Hash classes are able to take multiple regions before returning the hash, e.g. as in:
class Hash {
public:
void update(const void *data, size_t size) = 0;
std::vector<uint8_t> digest() = 0;
}
So your hash method could look like this:
std::vector<uint8_t> Foo::hash(Hash *hash) const {
hash->update(&x, sizeof(x));
hash->update(&y, sizeof(y));
hash->update(&z, sizeof(z));
return hash->digest();
}
You can solve this by making an iterator that knows the layout of your member variables. Make Foo::begin() and Foo::end() functions and you can even take advantage of range-based for loops.
If you can increment it and dereference it, you can use it any other place you're able to use a LegacyForwardIterator.
Add in comparison functions to get access to the common it = X.begin(); it != X.end(); ++it idiom.
Some downsides include: ugly library code, poor maintainability, and (in this current form) no regard for endianess.
The solution to the latter downside is left as an exercise to the reader.
#include <array>
#include <iostream>
class Foo {
friend class FooByteIter;
public:
FooByteIter begin() const;
FooByteIter end() const;
Foo(const std::array<int, 2>& x, const char (&y)[2], long z)
: x_{x}
, y_{y[0], y[1]}
, z_{z}
{}
protected:
std::array<int, 2> x_;
char y_[2];
long z_;
};
class FooByteIter {
public:
FooByteIter(const Foo& foo)
: ptr_{reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&(foo.x_))}
, x_end_{reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&(foo.x_)) + sizeof(foo.x_)}
, y_begin_{reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&(foo.y_))}
, y_end_{reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&(foo.y_)) + sizeof(foo.y_)}
, z_begin_{reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&(foo.z_))}
{}
static FooByteIter end(const Foo& foo) {
FooByteIter fbi{foo};
fbi.ptr_ = reinterpret_cast<const char*>(&foo.z_) + sizeof(foo.z_);
return fbi;
}
bool operator==(const FooByteIter& other) const { return ptr_ == other.ptr_; }
bool operator!=(const FooByteIter& other) const { return ! (*this == other); }
FooByteIter& operator++() {
ptr_++;
if (ptr_ == x_end_) {
ptr_ = y_begin_;
}
else if (ptr_ == y_end_) {
ptr_ = z_begin_;
}
return *this;
}
FooByteIter operator++(int) {
FooByteIter pre = *this;
(*this)++;
return pre;
}
char operator*() const {
return *ptr_;
}
private:
const char* ptr_;
const char* const x_end_;
const char* const y_begin_;
const char* const y_end_;
const char* const z_begin_;
};
FooByteIter Foo::begin() const {
return FooByteIter(*this);
}
FooByteIter Foo::end() const {
return FooByteIter::end(*this);
}
template <typename InputIt>
char checksum(InputIt first, InputIt last) {
char check = 0;
while (first != last) {
check += (*first);
++first;
}
return check;
}
int main() {
Foo f{{1, 2}, {3, 4}, 5};
for (const auto b : f) {
std::cout << (int)b << ' ';
}
std::cout << std::endl;
std::cout << "Checksum is: " << (int)checksum(f.begin(), f.end()) << std::endl;
}
You can generalize this further by making serialization functions for all data types you might care about, allowing serialization of classes that aren't plain-old-data types.
Warning
This code assumes that the underlying types being serialized have no internal padding, themselves. This answer works for this datatype because it is made of types which themselves do not pad. To make this work for datatypes that have datatypes that have padding, this method would need to be recursed all the way down.
Just cast a pointer to object to a pointer to char. You can iterate through the bytes by increment. Use sizeof(foo) to check overflow.
As long as you're able to make your class an aggregate, i.e. std::is_aggregate_v<T> == true, you can actually sort-of reflect the members of the structure.
This allows you to easily hash the members without actually having to name them. (also you don't have to remember updating your hash function every time you add a new member)
Step 1: Getting the number of members inside the aggregate
First we need to know how many members a given aggregate type has.
We can check this by (ab-)using aggregate initialization.
Example:
Given struct Foo { int i; int j; };:
Foo a{}; // ok
Foo b{{}}; // ok
Foo c{{}, {}}; // ok
Foo d{{}, {}, {}}; // error: too many initializers for 'Foo'
We can use this to get the number of members inside the struct, by trying to add more initializers until we get an error:
template<class T>
concept aggregate = std::is_aggregate_v<T>;
struct any_type {
template<class T>
operator T() {}
};
template<aggregate T>
consteval std::size_t count_members(auto ...members) {
if constexpr (requires { T{ {members}... }; } == false)
return sizeof...(members) - 1;
else
return count_members<T>(members..., any_type{});
}
Notice that i used {members}... instead of members....
This is because of arrays - a structure like struct Bar{int i[2];}; could be initialized with 2 elements, e.g. Bar b{1, 2}, so our function would have returned 2 for Bar if we had used members....
Step 2: Extracting the members
Now that we know how many members our structure has, we can use structured bindings to extract them.
Unfortunately there is no way in the current standard to create a structured binding expression with a variable amount of expressions, so we have to add a few extra lines of code for each additional member we want to support.
For this example i've only added a max of 4 members, but you can add as many as you like / need:
template<aggregate T>
constexpr auto tie_struct(T const& data) {
constexpr std::size_t fieldCount = count_members<T>();
if constexpr(fieldCount == 0) {
return std::tie();
} else if constexpr (fieldCount == 1) {
auto const& [m1] = data;
return std::tie(m1);
} else if constexpr (fieldCount == 2) {
auto const& [m1, m2] = data;
return std::tie(m1, m2);
} else if constexpr (fieldCount == 3) {
auto const& [m1, m2, m3] = data;
return std::tie(m1, m2, m3);
} else if constexpr (fieldCount == 4) {
auto const& [m1, m2, m3, m4] = data;
return std::tie(m1, m2, m3, m4);
} else {
static_assert(fieldCount!=fieldCount, "Too many fields for tie_struct! add more if statements!");
}
}
The fieldCount!=fieldCount in the static_assert is intentional, this prevents the compiler from evaluating it prematurely (it only complains if the else case is actually hit)
Now we have a function that can give us references to each member of an arbitrary aggregate.
Example:
struct Foo {int i; float j; std::string s; };
Foo f{1, 2, "miau"};
// tup is of type std::tuple<int const&, float const&, std::string const&>
auto tup = tie_struct(f);
// this will output "12miau"
std::cout << std::get<0>(tup) << std::get<1>(tup) << std::get<2>(tup) << std::endl;
Step 3: hashing the members
Now that we can convert any aggregate into a tuple of its members, hashing it shouldn't be a big problem.
You can basically hash the individual types like you want and then combine the individual hashes:
// for merging two hash values
std::size_t hash_combine(std::size_t h1, std::size_t h2)
{
return (h2 + 0x9e3779b9 + (h1<<6) + (h1>>2)) ^ h1;
}
// Handling primitives
template <class T, class = void>
struct is_std_hashable : std::false_type { };
template <class T>
struct is_std_hashable<T, std::void_t<decltype(std::declval<std::hash<T>>()(std::declval<T>()))>> : std::true_type { };
template <class T>
concept std_hashable = is_std_hashable<T>::value;
template<std_hashable T>
std::size_t hash(T value) {
return std::hash<T>{}(value);
}
// Handling tuples
template<class... Members>
std::size_t hash(std::tuple<Members...> const& tuple) {
return std::apply([](auto const&... members) {
std::size_t result = 0;
((result = hash_combine(result, hash(members))), ...);
return result;
}, tuple);
}
template<class T, std::size_t I>
using Arr = T[I];
// Handling arrays
template<class T, std::size_t I>
std::size_t hash(Arr<T, I> const& arr) {
std::size_t result = 0;
for(T const& elem : arr) {
std::size_t h = hash(elem);
result = hash_combine(result, h);
}
return result;
};
// Handling structs
template<aggregate T>
std::size_t hash(T const& agg) {
return hash(tie_struct(agg));
}
This allows you to hash basically any aggregate struct, even with arrays and nested structs:
struct Foo{ int i; double d; std::string s; };
struct Bar { Foo k[10]; float f; };
std::cout << hash(Foo{1, 1.2f, "miau"}) << std::endl;
std::cout << hash(Bar{}) << std::endl;
full example on godbolt
Footnotes
This only works with aggregates
No need to worry about padding because we access the members directly.
You have to add a few more ifs into tie_struct if you need more than 4 members
The provided hash() function doesn't handle all types - if you need e.g. std::array, std::pair, etc... you need to add overloads for those.
It's a lot of boilerplate code, but it's insanely powerful.
You can also use Boost.PFR for the aggregate-to-tuple part, if you are allowed to use boost
I need to create an adapter C++ class, which accepts an integer index, and retrieves some types of data from a C module by the index, and then returns it to the C++ module.
The data retrieving functions in the C module are like:
int getInt(int index);
double getDouble(int index);
const char* getString(int index);
// ...and etc.
I want to implement an array-like interface for the C++ module, so I created the following class:
class Arguments {
public:
template<typename T> T operator[] (int index);
};
template<> int Arguments::operator[] (int index) { return getInt(index); }
template<> double Arguments::operator[] (int index) { return getdouble(index); }
template<> std::string Arguments::operator[] (int index) { return getString(index); }
(Template class doesn't help in this case, but only template member functions)
The adapter class is no biggie, but calling the Arguments::operator[] is a problem!
I found out that I can only call it in this way:
Arguments a;
int i = a.operator[]<int>(0); // OK
double d = a.operator[]<double>(1); // OK
int x = a[0]; // doesn't compile! it doesn't deduce.
But it looks like a joke, doesn't it?
If this is the case, I would rather create normal member functions, like template<T> T get(int index).
So here comes the question: if I create array-operator-overloading function T operator[]() and its specializations, is it possible to call it like accessing an array?
Thank you!
The simple answer is: No, not possible. You cannot overload a function based on its return type. See here for a similar quesiton: overload operator[] on return type
However, there is a trick that lets you deduce a type from the lhs of an assignment:
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
struct container;
struct helper {
container& c;
size_t index;
template <typename T> operator T();
};
struct container {
helper operator[](size_t i){
return {*this,i};
}
template <typename T>
T get_value(size_t i){
if constexpr (std::is_same_v<T,int>) {
return 42;
} else {
return 0.42;
}
}
};
template <typename T>
helper::operator T(){
return c.get_value<T>(index);
}
int main() {
container c;
int x = c[0];
std::cout << x << "\n";
double y = c[1];
std::cout << y ;
}
Output is:
42
0.42
The line int x = c[0]; goes via container::get_value<int> where the int is deduced from the type of x. Similarly double y = c[1]; uses container::get_value<double> because y is double.
The price you pay is lots of boilerplate and using auto like this
auto x = c[1];
will get you a helper, not the desired value which might be a bit unexpected.
So the order of the members returned from the div functions seems to be implementation defined.
Is quot the 1st member or is rem?
Let's say that I'm doing something like this:
generate(begin(digits), end(digits), [i = div_t{ quot, 0 }]() mutable {
i = div(i.quot, 10);
return i.rem;
})
Of course the problem here is that I don't know if I initialized i.quot or i.rem in my lambda capture. Is intializing i with div(quot, 1) the only cross platform way to do this?
You're right that the order of the members is unspecified. The definition is inherited from C, which explicitly states it is (emphasis mine):
7.20.6.2 The div, ldiv, and lldiv functions
3 [...] The structures shall contain (in either order) the members quot (the quotient) and rem (the remainder), each of which has the same type as the arguments numer and denom. [...]
In C, the fact that the order is unspecified doesn't matter, and an example is included specifically regarding div_t:
6.7.8 Initialization
34 EXAMPLE 10 Structure members can be initialized to nonzero values without depending on their order:
div_t answer = { .quot = 2, .rem = -1 };
Unfortunately, C++ never adopted this syntax.
I'd probably go for simple assignment in a helper function:
div_t make_div_t(int quot, int rem) {
div_t result;
result.quot = quot;
result.rem = rem;
return result;
}
For plain int values, whether you use initialisation or assignment doesn't really matter, they have the same effect.
Your division by 1 is a valid option as well.
To quote the C11 Standard Draft N1570 §7.22.6.2
The div, ldiv, and lldiv functions return a structure of type div_t, ldiv_t, and lldiv_t, respectively, comprising both the quotient and the remainder. The structures shall contain (in either order) the members quot (the quotient) and rem (the remainder), each of which has the same type as the arguments numer and denom.
So in this case div_t is a plain POD struct, consisting of two ints.
So you can initialize it like every plain struct, your way would be something I would have done too. It's also portable.
Otherwise I can't find anything special mechanism to initialize them, neither in the C nor in the C++ standard. But for POD aka Plain Old Datatypes, there isn't any need for.
EDIT:
I think the VS workaround could look like this:
#include <cstdlib>
#include <type_traits>
template<class T>
struct DTMaker {
using D = decltype(div(T{}, T{}));
static constexpr D dt = D{0,1};
static constexpr auto quot = dt.quot;
};
template <class T, typename std::enable_if<DTMaker<T>::quot == 0>::type* = nullptr>
typename DTMaker<T>::D make_div(const T ", const T& rem) { return {quot, rem}; }
template <class T, typename std::enable_if<DTMaker<T>::quot == 1>::type* = nullptr>
typename DTMaker<T>::D make_div(const T ", const T &rem) { return {rem, qout}; }
int main() {
div_t d_t = make_div(1, 2);
}
[live demo]
OLD ANSWER:
If you are using c++17 you could also try to use structured binding, constexpr function and SFINAE overloading to detect which field is declared first in the structure:
#include <cstdlib>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
constexpr bool first_quot() {
auto [x, y] = std::div_t{1, 0};
(void)y;
return x;
}
template <bool B = first_quot()>
std::enable_if_t<B, std::div_t> foo() {
int quot = 1;
int rem = 0;
return {quot, rem};
}
template <bool B = first_quot()>
std::enable_if_t<!B, std::div_t> foo() {
int quot = 1;
int rem = 0;
return {rem, quot};
}
int main() {
foo();
}
[live demo]
Or even simpler use if constexpr:
#include <cstdlib>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
constexpr bool first_quot() {
auto [x, y] = std::div_t{1, 0};
(void)y;
return x;
}
std::div_t foo() {
int quot = 1;
int rem = 0;
if constexpr(first_quot())
return {quot, rem};
else
return {rem, quot};
}
int main() {
foo();
}
[live demo]
Try something like this:)
int quot = 10;
auto l = [i = [=] { div_t tmp{}; tmp.quot = quot; return tmp; }()]() mutable
{
i = div(i.quot, 10);
return i.rem;
};
It looks like using a compound literal in C.:)
or you can simplify the task by defining the variable i outside the lambda expression and use it in the lambda by reference.
For example
int quot = 10;
dov_t i = {};
i.quot = quot;
auto l = [&i]()
{
i = div(i.quot, 10);
return i.rem;
};
You can use a ternary to initialize this:
generate(rbegin(digits), rend(digits), [i = div_t{ 1, 0 }.quot ? div_t{ quot, 0 } : div_t{ 0, quot }]() mutable {
i = div(i.quot, 10);
return i.rem;
});
gcc6.3 for example will compile identical code with the ternary and without the ternary.
On the other hand clang3.9 compiles longer code with the ternary than it does without the ternary.
So whether the ternary is optimized out will vary between compilers. But in all cases it will give you implementation independent code that doesn't require a secondary function to be written.
Incidentally if you are into creating a helper function to create a div_t (or any of the other div returns) you can do it like this:
template <typename T>
enable_if_t<decltype(div(declval<T>(), declval<T>())){ 1, 0 }.quot != 0, decltype(div(declval<T>(), declval<T>()))> make_div(const T quot, const T rem) { return { quot, rem }; }
template <typename T>
enable_if_t<decltype(div(declval<T>(), declval<T>())){ 1, 0 }.quot == 0, decltype(div(declval<T>(), declval<T>()))> make_div(const T quot, const T rem) { return { rem, quot }; }
Note this does work on gcc but fails to compile on Visual Studio because of some non-conformity.
My solution uses a constexpr function that itself wraps and executes a lambda function that determines and initializes the correct div_t depending on the template parameters.
template <typename T>
constexpr auto make_div(const T quot, const T rem)
{
return [&]() {
decltype(std::div(quot, rem)) result;
result.quot = quot;
result.rem = rem;
return result;
}();
}
This works with MSVC15, gcc 6.3 and clang 3.9.1.
http://rextester.com/AOBCH32388
The lambda allows us to initialize a value step by step within a constexpr function. So we can set quot and rem correctly and independently from the order they appear in the datatype itself.
By wrapping it into a constexpr function we allow the compiler to completely optimize the call to make_div:
clang: https://godbolt.org/g/YdZGkX
gcc: https://godbolt.org/g/sA61LK
Background
I'm working with an embedded platform with the following restrictions:
No heap
No Boost libraries
C++11 is supported
I've dealt with the following problem a few times in the past:
Create an array of class type T, where T has no default constructor
The project only recently added C++11 support, and up until now I've been using ad-hoc solutions every time I had to deal with this. Now that C++11 is available, I thought I'd try to make a more general solution.
Solution Attempt
I copied an example of std::aligned_storage to come up with the framework for my array type. The result looks like this:
#include <type_traits>
template<class T, size_t N>
class Array {
// Provide aligned storage for N objects of type T
typename std::aligned_storage<sizeof(T), alignof(T)>::type data[N];
public:
// Build N objects of type T in the aligned storage using default CTORs
Array()
{
for(auto index = 0; index < N; ++index)
new(data + index) T();
}
const T& operator[](size_t pos) const
{
return *reinterpret_cast<const T*>(data + pos);
}
// Other methods consistent with std::array API go here
};
This is a basic type - Array<T,N> only compiles if T is default-constructible. I'm not very familiar with template parameter packing, but looking at some examples led me to the following:
template<typename ...Args>
Array(Args&&... args)
{
for(auto index = 0; index < N; ++index)
new(data + index) T(args...);
}
This was definitely a step in the right direction. Array<T,N> now compiles if passed arguments matching a constructor of T.
My only remaining problem is constructing an Array<T,N> where different elements in the array have different constructor arguments. I figured I could split this into two cases:
1 - User Specifies Arguments
Here's my stab at the CTOR:
template<typename U>
Array(std::initializer_list<U> initializers)
{
// Need to handle mismatch in size between arg and array
size_t index = 0;
for(auto arg : initializers) {
new(data + index) T(arg);
index++;
}
}
This seems to work fine, aside from needing to handle a dimension mismatch between the array and initializer list, but there are a number of ways to deal with that that aren't important. Here's an example:
struct Foo {
explicit Foo(int i) {}
};
void bar() {
// foos[0] == Foo(0)
// foos[1] == Foo(1)
// ..etc
Array<Foo,10> foos {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9};
}
2 - Arguments Follow Pattern
In my previous example, foos is initialized with an incrementing list, similar to std::iota. Ideally I'd like to support something like the following, where range(int) returns SOMETHING that can initialize the array.
// One of these should initialize foos with parameters returned by range(10)
Array<Foo,10> foosA = range(10);
Array<Foo,10> foosB {range(10)};
Array<Foo,10> foosC = {range(10)};
Array<Foo,10> foosD(range(10));
Googling has shown me that std::initializer_list isn't a "normal" container, so I don't think there's any way for me to make range(int) return a std::initializer_list depending on the function parameter.
Again, there are a few options here:
Parameters specified at run-time (function return?)
Parameters specified at compile-time (constexpr function return? templates?)
Questions
Are there any issues with this solution so far?
Does anyone have a suggestion to generate constructor parameters? I can't think of a solution at runtime or compile-time other than hard-coding an std::initializer_list, so any ideas are welcome.
If i understand your problem correctly, I've also stumbled across std::array's total inflexibility regarding element construction in favor of aggregate initialization (and an absense of statically-allocated container with flexible element contruction options). The best approach I came up with was creating a custom array-like container which accepts an iterator to construct it's elements.
This is totally flexible solution:
Works for both fixed-size and dynamic-sized containers
Can pass different or same parameters to element constructors
Can call constructors with one or multiple (tuple piecewise construction) arguments, or even different constructors for different elements (with inversion of control)
For your example it would be like:
const size_t SIZE = 10;
std::array<int, SIZE> params;
for (size_t c = 0; c < SIZE; c++) {
params[c] = c;
}
Array<Foo, SIZE> foos(iterator_construct, ¶ms[0]); //iterator_construct is a special tag to call specific constructor
// also, we are able to pass a pointer as iterator, since it has both increment and dereference operators
Note: you can totally skip parameters array allocation here by using custom iterator class, which calculates it's value from it's position on-the-fly.
For multiple-argument constructor that would be:
const size_t SIZE = 10;
std::array<std::tuple<int, float>, SIZE> params; // will call Foo(int, float)
for (size_t c = 0; c < SIZE; c++) {
params[c] = std::make_tuple(c, 1.0f);
}
Array<Foo, SIZE> foos(iterator_construct, piecewise_construct, ¶ms[0]);
Concrete implementation example is kinda big piece of code, so please let me know if you want more insights into implementation details besides the general idea - I will update my answer then.
I'd use a factory lambda.
The lambda takes a pointer to where to construct and an index, and is responsible for constructing.
This makes copy/move easy to write as well, which is a good sign.
template<class T, std::size_t N>
struct my_array {
T* data() { return (T*)&buffer; }
T const* data() const { return (T const*)&buffer; }
// basic random-access container operations:
T* begin() { return data(); }
T const* begin() const { return data(); }
T* end() { return data()+N; }
T const* end() const { return data()+N; }
T& operator[](std::size_t i){ return *(begin()+i); }
T const& operator[](std::size_t i)const{ return *(begin()+i); }
// useful utility:
bool empty() const { return N!=0; }
T& front() { return *begin(); }
T const& front() const { return *begin(); }
T& back() { return *(end()-1); }
T const& back() const { return *(end()-1); }
std::size_t size() const { return N; }
// construct from function object:
template<class Factory,
typename std::enable_if<!std::is_same<std::decay_t<Factory>, my_array>::value, int> =0
>
my_array( Factory&& factory ) {
std::size_t i = 0;
try {
for(; i < N; ++i) {
factory( (void*)(data()+i), i );
}
} catch(...) {
// throw during construction. Unroll creation, and rethrow:
for(std::size_t j = 0; j < i; ++j) {
(data()+i-j-1)->~T();
}
throw;
}
}
// other constructors, in terms of above naturally:
my_array():
my_array( [](void* ptr, std::size_t) {
new(ptr) T();
} )
{}
my_array(my_array&& o):
my_array( [&](void* ptr, std::size_t i) {
new(ptr) T( std::move(o[i]) );
} )
{}
my_array(my_array const& o):
my_array( [&](void* ptr, std::size_t i) {
new(ptr) T( o[i] );
} )
{}
my_array& operator=(my_array&& o) {
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < N; ++i)
(*this)[i] = std::move(o[i]);
return *this;
}
my_array& operator=(my_array const& o) {
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < N; ++i)
(*this)[i] = o[i];
return *this;
}
private:
using storage = typename std::aligned_storage< sizeof(T)*N, alignof(T) >::type;
storage buffer;
};
it defines my_array(), but that is only compiled if you try to compile it.
Supporting initializer list is relatively easy. Deciding what to do when the il isn't long enough, or too long, is hard. I think you might want:
template<class Fail>
my_array( std::initializer_list<T> il, Fail&& fail ):
my_array( [&](void* ptr, std::size_t i) {
if (i < il.size()) new(ptr) T(il[i]);
else fail(ptr, i);
} )
{}
which requires you pass in a "what to do on fail". We could default to throw by adding:
template<class WhatToThrow>
struct throw_when_called {
template<class...Args>
void operator()(Args&&...)const {
throw WhatToThrow{"when called"};
}
};
struct list_too_short:std::length_error {
list_too_short():std::length_error("list too short") {}
};
template<class Fail=ThrowWhenCalled<list_too_short>>
my_array( std::initializer_list<T> il, Fail&& fail={} ):
my_array( [&](void* ptr, std::size_t i) {
if (i < il.size()) new(ptr) T(il[i]);
else fail(ptr, i);
} )
{}
which if I wrote it right, makes a too-short initializer list cause a meaningful throw message. On your platform, you could just exit(-1) if you don't have exceptions.
I have found two good approaches to initialise integral arrays at compile times here and here.
Unfortunately, neither can be converted to initialise a float array straightforward; I find that I am not fit enough in template metaprogramming to solve this through trial-and-error.
First let me declare a use-case:
constexpr unsigned int SineLength = 360u;
constexpr unsigned int ArrayLength = SineLength+(SineLength/4u);
constexpr double PI = 3.1415926535;
float array[ArrayLength];
void fillArray(unsigned int length)
{
for(unsigned int i = 0u; i < length; ++i)
array[i] = sin(double(i)*PI/180.*360./double(SineLength));
}
As you can see, as far as the availability of information goes, this array could be declared constexpr.
However, for the first approach linked, the generator function f would have to look like this:
constexpr float f(unsigned int i)
{
return sin(double(i)*PI/180.*360./double(SineLength));
}
And that means that a template argument of type float is needed. Which is not allowed.
Now, the first idea that springs to mind would be to store the float in an int variable - nothing happens to the array indices after their calculation, so pretending that they were of another type than they are (as long as byte-length is equal) is perfectly fine.
But see:
constexpr int f(unsigned int i)
{
float output = sin(double(i)*PI/180.*360./double(SineLength));
return *(int*)&output;
}
is not a valid constexpr, as it contains more than the return statement.
constexpr int f(unsigned int i)
{
return reinterpret_cast<int>(sin(double(i)*PI/180.*360./double(SineLength)));
}
does not work either; even though one might think that reinterpret_cast does exactly what is needed here (namely nothing), it apparently only works on pointers.
Following the second approach, the generator function would look slightly different:
template<size_t index> struct f
{
enum : float{ value = sin(double(index)*PI/180.*360./double(SineLength)) };
};
With what is essentially the same problem: That enum cannot be of type float and the type cannot be masked as int.
Now, even though I have only approached the problem on the path of "pretend the float is an int", I do not actually like that path (aside from it not working). I would much prefer a way that actually handled the float as float (and would just as well handle a double as double), but I see no way to get around the type restriction imposed.
Sadly, there are many questions about this issue, which always refer to integral types, swamping the search for this specialised issue. Similarly, questions about masking one type as the other typically do not consider the restrictions of a constexpr or template parameter environment.
See [1][2][3] and [4][5] etc.
Assuming your actual goal is to have a concise way to initialize an array of floating point numbers and it isn't necessarily spelled float array[N] or double array[N] but rather std::array<float, N> array or std::array<double, N> array this can be done.
The significance of the type of array is that std::array<T, N> can be copied - unlike T[N]. If it can be copied, you can obtain the content of the array from a function call, e.g.:
constexpr std::array<float, ArrayLength> array = fillArray<N>();
How does that help us? Well, when we can call a function taking an integer as an argument, we can use std::make_index_sequence<N> to give use a compile-time sequence of std::size_t from 0 to N-1. If we have that, we can initialize an array easily with a formula based on the index like this:
constexpr double const_sin(double x) { return x * 3.1; } // dummy...
template <std::size_t... I>
constexpr std::array<float, sizeof...(I)> fillArray(std::index_sequence<I...>) {
return std::array<float, sizeof...(I)>{
const_sin(double(I)*M_PI/180.*360./double(SineLength))...
};
}
template <std::size_t N>
constexpr std::array<float, N> fillArray() {
return fillArray(std::make_index_sequence<N>{});
}
Assuming the function used to initialize the array elements is actually a constexpr expression, this approach can generate a constexpr. The function const_sin() which is there just for demonstration purpose does that but it, obviously, doesn't compute a reasonable approximation of sin(x).
The comments indicate that the answer so far doesn't quite explain what's going on. So, let's break it down into digestible parts:
The goal is to produce a constexpr array filled with suitable sequence of values. However, the size of the array should be easily changeable by adjusting just the array size N. That is, conceptually, the objective is to create
constexpr float array[N] = { f(0), f(1), ..., f(N-1) };
Where f() is a suitable function producing a constexpr. For example, f() could be defined as
constexpr float f(int i) {
return const_sin(double(i) * M_PI / 180.0 * 360.0 / double(Length);
}
However, typing in the calls to f(0), f(1), etc. would need to change with every change of N. So, essentially the same as the above declaration should be done but without extra typing.
The first step towards the solution is to replace float[N] by std:array<float, N>: built-in arrays cannot be copied while std::array<float, N> can be copied. That is, the initialization could be delegated to to a function parameterized by N. That is, we'd use
template <std::size_t N>
constexpr std::array<float, N> fillArray() {
// some magic explained below goes here
}
constexpr std::array<float, N> array = fillArray<N>();
Within the function we can't simply loop over the array because the non-const subscript operator isn't a constexpr. Instead, the array needs to be initialized upon creation. If we had a parameter pack std::size_t... I which represented the sequence 0, 1, .., N-1 we could just do
std::array<float, N>{ f(I)... };
as the expansion would effectively become equivalent to typing
std::array<float, N>{ f(0), f(1), .., f(N-1) };
So the question becomes: how to get such a parameter pack? I don't think it can be obtained directly in the function but it can be obtained by calling another function with a suitable parameter.
The using alias std::make_index_sequence<N> is an alias for the type std::index_sequence<0, 1, .., N-1>. The details of the implementation are a bit arcane but std::make_index_sequence<N>, std::index_sequence<...>, and friends are part of C++14 (they were proposed by N3493 based on, e.g., on this answer from me). That is, all we need to do is call an auxiliary function with a parameter of type std::index_sequence<...> and get the parameter pack from there:
template <std::size_t...I>
constexpr std::array<float, sizeof...(I)>
fillArray(std::index_sequence<I...>) {
return std::array<float, sizeof...(I)>{ f(I)... };
}
template <std::size_t N>
constexpr std::array<float, N> fillArray() {
return fillArray(std::make_index_sequence<N>{});
}
The [unnamed] parameter to this function is only used to have the parameter pack std::size_t... I be deduced.
Here's a working example that generates a table of sin values, and that you can easily adapt to logarithm tables by passing a different function object
#include <array> // array
#include <cmath> // sin
#include <cstddef> // size_t
#include <utility> // index_sequence, make_index_sequence
#include <iostream>
namespace detail {
template<class Function, std::size_t... Indices>
constexpr auto make_array_helper(Function f, std::index_sequence<Indices...>)
-> std::array<decltype(f(std::size_t{})), sizeof...(Indices)>
{
return {{ f(Indices)... }};
}
} // namespace detail
template<std::size_t N, class Function>
constexpr auto make_array(Function f)
{
return detail::make_array_helper(f, std::make_index_sequence<N>{});
}
static auto const pi = std::acos(-1);
static auto const make_sin = [](int x) { return std::sin(pi * x / 180.0); };
static auto const sin_table = make_array<360>(make_sin);
int main()
{
for (auto elem : sin_table)
std::cout << elem << "\n";
}
Live Example.
Note that you need to use -stdlib=libc++ because libstdc++ has a pretty inefficient implementation of index_sequence.
Also note that you need a constexpr function object (both pi and std::sin are not constexpr) to initialize the array truly at compile-time rather than at program initialization.
There are a few problems to overcome if you want to initialise a floating point array at compile time:
std::array is a little broken in that the operator[] is not constexpr in the case of a mutable constexpr std::array (I believe this will be fixed in the next release of the standard).
the functions in std::math are not marked constexpr!
I had a similar problem domain recently. I wanted to create an accurate but fast version of sin(x).
I decided to see if it could be done with a constexpr cache with interpolation to get speed without loss of accuracy.
An advantage of making the cache constexpr is that the calculation of sin(x) for a value known at compile-time is that the sin is pre-computed and simply exists in the code as an immediate register load! In the worst case of a runtime argument, it's merely a constant array lookup followed by w weighted average.
This code will need to be compiled with -fconstexpr-steps=2000000 on clang, or the equivalent in windows.
enjoy:
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
#include <utility>
#include <cassert>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
namespace cpputil {
// a fully constexpr version of array that allows incomplete
// construction
template<size_t N, class T>
struct array
{
// public constructor defers to internal one for
// conditional handling of missing arguments
constexpr array(std::initializer_list<T> list)
: array(list, std::make_index_sequence<N>())
{
}
constexpr T& operator[](size_t i) noexcept {
assert(i < N);
return _data[i];
}
constexpr const T& operator[](size_t i) const noexcept {
assert(i < N);
return _data[i];
}
constexpr T& at(size_t i) noexcept {
assert(i < N);
return _data[i];
}
constexpr const T& at(size_t i) const noexcept {
assert(i < N);
return _data[i];
}
constexpr T* begin() {
return std::addressof(_data[0]);
}
constexpr const T* begin() const {
return std::addressof(_data[0]);
}
constexpr T* end() {
// todo: maybe use std::addressof and disable compiler warnings
// about array bounds that result
return &_data[N];
}
constexpr const T* end() const {
return &_data[N];
}
constexpr size_t size() const {
return N;
}
private:
T _data[N];
private:
// construct each element from the initialiser list if present
// if not, default-construct
template<size_t...Is>
constexpr array(std::initializer_list<T> list, std::integer_sequence<size_t, Is...>)
: _data {
(
Is >= list.size()
?
T()
:
std::move(*(std::next(list.begin(), Is)))
)...
}
{
}
};
// convenience printer
template<size_t N, class T>
inline std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const array<N, T>& a)
{
os << "[";
auto sep = " ";
for (const auto& i : a) {
os << sep << i;
sep = ", ";
}
return os << " ]";
}
}
namespace trig
{
constexpr double pi() {
return M_PI;
}
template<class T>
auto constexpr to_radians(T degs) {
return degs / 180.0 * pi();
}
// compile-time computation of a factorial
constexpr double factorial(size_t x) {
double result = 1.0;
for (int i = 2 ; i <= x ; ++i)
result *= double(i);
return result;
}
// compile-time replacement for std::pow
constexpr double power(double x, size_t n)
{
double result = 1;
while (n--) {
result *= x;
}
return result;
}
// compute a term in a taylor expansion at compile time
constexpr double taylor_term(double x, size_t i)
{
int powers = 1 + (2 * i);
double top = power(x, powers);
double bottom = factorial(powers);
auto term = top / bottom;
if (i % 2 == 1)
term = -term;
return term;
}
// compute the sin(x) using `terms` terms in the taylor expansion
constexpr double taylor_expansion(double x, size_t terms)
{
auto result = x;
for (int term = 1 ; term < terms ; ++term)
{
result += taylor_term(x, term);
}
return result;
}
// compute our interpolatable table as a constexpr
template<size_t N = 1024>
struct sin_table : cpputil::array<N, double>
{
static constexpr size_t cache_size = N;
static constexpr double step_size = (pi() / 2) / cache_size;
static constexpr double _360 = pi() * 2;
static constexpr double _270 = pi() * 1.5;
static constexpr double _180 = pi();
static constexpr double _90 = pi() / 2;
constexpr sin_table()
: cpputil::array<N, double>({})
{
for(int slot = 0 ; slot < cache_size ; ++slot)
{
double val = trig::taylor_expansion(step_size * slot, 20);
(*this)[slot] = val;
}
}
double checked_interp_fw(double rads) const {
size_t slot0 = size_t(rads / step_size);
auto v0 = (slot0 >= this->size()) ? 1.0 : (*this)[slot0];
size_t slot1 = slot0 + 1;
auto v1 = (slot1 >= this->size()) ? 1.0 : (*this)[slot1];
auto ratio = (rads - (slot0 * step_size)) / step_size;
return (v1 * ratio) + (v0 * (1.0-ratio));
}
double interpolate(double rads) const
{
rads = std::fmod(rads, _360);
if (rads < 0)
rads = std::fmod(_360 - rads, _360);
if (rads < _90) {
return checked_interp_fw(rads);
}
else if (rads < _180) {
return checked_interp_fw(_90 - (rads - _90));
}
else if (rads < _270) {
return -checked_interp_fw(rads - _180);
}
else {
return -checked_interp_fw(_90 - (rads - _270));
}
}
};
double sine(double x)
{
if (x < 0) {
return -sine(-x);
}
else {
constexpr sin_table<> table;
return table.interpolate(x);
}
}
}
void check(float degs) {
using namespace std;
cout << "checking : " << degs << endl;
auto mysin = trig::sine(trig::to_radians(degs));
auto stdsin = std::sin(trig::to_radians(degs));
auto error = stdsin - mysin;
cout << "mine=" << mysin << ", std=" << stdsin << ", error=" << error << endl;
cout << endl;
}
auto main() -> int
{
check(0.5);
check(30);
check(45.4);
check(90);
check(151);
check(180);
check(195);
check(89.5);
check(91);
check(270);
check(305);
check(360);
return 0;
}
expected output:
checking : 0.5
mine=0.00872653, std=0.00872654, error=2.15177e-09
checking : 30
mine=0.5, std=0.5, error=1.30766e-07
checking : 45.4
mine=0.712026, std=0.712026, error=2.07233e-07
checking : 90
mine=1, std=1, error=0
checking : 151
mine=0.48481, std=0.48481, error=2.42041e-08
checking : 180
mine=-0, std=1.22465e-16, error=1.22465e-16
checking : 195
mine=-0.258819, std=-0.258819, error=-6.76265e-08
checking : 89.5
mine=0.999962, std=0.999962, error=2.5215e-07
checking : 91
mine=0.999847, std=0.999848, error=2.76519e-07
checking : 270
mine=-1, std=-1, error=0
checking : 305
mine=-0.819152, std=-0.819152, error=-1.66545e-07
checking : 360
mine=0, std=-2.44929e-16, error=-2.44929e-16
I am just keeping this answer for documentation. As the comments say, I was mislead by gcc being permissive. It fails, when f(42) is used e.g. as a template parameter like this:
std::array<int, f(42)> asdf;
sorry, this was not a solution
Separate the calculation of your float and the conversion to an int in two different constexpr functions:
constexpr int floatAsInt(float float_val) {
return *(int*)&float_val;
}
constexpr int f(unsigned int i) {
return floatAsInt(sin(double(i)*PI/180.*360./double(SineLength)));
}