HDF5 Functions and Smart Destructors - std::unique_ptr() - c++

Many HDF5 functions are initialized as follows
hid_t handler = DoSomething(someHandler);
And one has to manually free the memory reserved by such an operation using something like:
freeme(handler);
So it's the same nightmare/problems that come along by using malloc and/or the new operator.
I want to create something like unique_ptr to handle this at destruction. The problem, however, that every different function has a different freeing function.
For example:
hid_t attribType = H5Aget_type(attribHandler);
must be freed with
H5Tclose(attribType);
But this function
attribHandler = H5Aopen(obj_id,"name",H5P_DEFAULT);
Must be freed with
H5Aclose(attribHandler);
So I need to write a class that can take hid_t as template parameter (that's easy), and also can take the freeing function as some kind of parameter, and call it on destruction.
What's the best way to achieve this?
Update
It was suggested to me to use std::unique_ptr with a custom deleter, but this doesn't work because std::unique_ptr expects a pointer.
std::unique_ptr<hid_t,std::function<herr_t(hid_t)>> attribType(H5Aget_type(attribHandler), [](hid_t f) { return H5Tclose(f); });
This creates a compile error due to the second parameter, the lambda function. The error says (g++ 4.9):
error: invalid conversion from ‘hid_t {aka int}’ to ‘std::unique_ptr<int, std::function<int(int)> >::pointer {aka int*}’ [-fpermissive]
std::unique_ptr<hid_t,std::function<herr_t(hid_t)>> attribType(H5Aget_type(attribHandler), [](hid_t f) { return H5Tclose(f); });
^
The error happens because std::unique_ptr expects hold a pointer to hid_t, not an hid_t object.
Is there a way around this? I think I can write my own class that does this now (I can use std::function to answer my first question), but would be great if I could use std::unique_ptr.

Something along these lines perhaps:
struct MyDeleter {
typedef hid_t pointer;
typedef void (*FreeFunc)(hid_t);
FreeFunc free_func_;
MyDeleter(FreeFunc free_func) : free_func_(free_func) {}
void operator()(hid_t f) const { free_func_(f); }
};
std::unique_ptr<hid_t, MyDeleter> p(
H5Aget_type(attribHandler),
MyDeleter(H5Tclose));

You may use something like:
template <typename Factory, Factory factory,
typename Deleter, Deleter deleter>
class SmartHandleH5;
template <typename Ret, typename ... Ts, Ret (*factory)(Ts...),
void (*deleter)(Ret)>
class SmartHandleH5<Ret (*)(Ts...), factory, void (*)(Ret), deleter>
{
public:
template <typename ... Us>
SmartHandle(Us&&... args) : handler(factory(std::forward<Us>(args)...)) {}
// Not copyable
SmartHandle(const SmartHandle&) = delete;
SmartHandle& operator =(const SmartHandle&) = delete;
// Not movable
SmartHandle(SmartHandle&&) = delete;
SmartHandle& operator =(SmartHandle&&) = delete;
// To avoid strange case with our template constructor
SmartHandle(SmartHandle&) = delete;
SmartHandle(const SmartHandle&&) = delete;
~SmartHandle() { deleter(handler); }
const T& get() const { return handler; }
T& get() { return handler; }
private:
Ret handler;
};
And then use the mapping factory/destructor once:
using SmartHandlerGetType = SmartHandlerH5<decltype(&H5Aget_type), H5Aget_type,
delctype(H5Tclose), H5Tclose>;
using SmartHandlerOpen = SmartHandlerH5<decltype(&H5Aopen), H5Aopen,
delctype(H5Aclose), H5Aclose>;
and use it:
SmartHandlerGetType attribType(attribHandler);
SmartHandlerOpen attribHandler(obj_id, "name", H5P_DEFAULT);
In addition, you might want to add an extra layer to hide completely hid_t
template <typename SmartHandle>
class HidHandle : private SmartHandle
{
public:
using SmartHandle::SmartHandle;
void foo() { someFunctionUsingHid(get()); }
};
and
using HidHandleGetType = HidHandle<SmartHandlerGetType>;
using HidHandleOpen = HidHandle<SmartHandlerOpen>;

I created my own handler class... it turned out it's not that difficult:
template <typename T, typename Deleter>
class SmartHandle
{
public:
typedef T value_type;
typedef Deleter deleter_function;
private:
T _value;
Deleter _deleter;
public:
SmartHandle(T value, Deleter deleter);
~SmartHandle();
T get();
};
template <typename T, typename Deleter>
SmartHandle<T,Deleter>::SmartHandle(T value, Deleter deleter)
{
this->_value = value;
this->_deleter = deleter;
}
template <typename T, typename Deleter>
T SmartHandle<T,Deleter>::get()
{
return _value;
}
template <typename T, typename Deleter>
SmartHandle<T,Deleter>::~SmartHandle()
{
_deleter(_value);
}
To use it:
SmartHandle<hid_t,std::function<herr_t(hid_t)>> attribType(H5Aget_type(attribHandler.get()), [](hid_t f) { return H5Tclose(f); });
Here attribHandler also uses a SmartHandle, which is why there's a .get() there.

Related

How to expand a non value paramter pack

I've been trying to expand a non value parameter pack recently in C++. Is this possible? And if it's not, why?
I mean, as you can see, in the line with the comment //, given a parameter pack for the TypeMap class, how can I call addType<T>() with each type of the parameter pack? Thanks in advance!
template <typename... T>
class TypeMap
{
using vari_cmps = std::variant<T*...>;
private:
template<typename Type>
void addType()
{
typemap[typeid(Type).name()] = std::make_unique<Type>(0).get();
}
public:
std::map<const char*, vari_cmps> typemap{};
TypeMap()
{
(addType<T,...>()); // Idk how to use this in order to make it work
}
~TypeMap()
{
typemap.clear();
}
};
As #HolyBlackCat has already answered in the comments, you can expand it like this:
TypeMap() {
(addType<T>(), ...);
}
If T is std::string, int, float this would expand to:
TypeMap() {
(addType<std::string>(), addType<int>(), addType<float>());
}
There are however a few more issues in this code-snippet:
1. addType()
addType() will not work as you'd expect, due to the unique_ptr deleteing your object after you put it into the map.
.get() only retrieves the pointer that the unique_ptr manages but does not transfer ownership, so the unique_ptr will still delete the pointed-to object once it gets out of scope, leaving a dangling pointer in your map.
so your addType() is roughly equivalent to:
template<typename Type>
void addType() {
Type* tptr = new Type(0); // unique pointer constructs object
typemap[typeid(Type).name()] = tptr; // insert pointer value of unique pointer
delete tptr; // unique pointer destructs
}
You could fix this by releasing the unique_ptr after inserting its value into the map & then cleaning it up in the destructor:
template<typename Type>
void addType() {
auto ptr = std::make_unique<Type>(0);
typemap[typeid(Type).name()] = ptr.get();
ptr.release(); // now unique_ptr won't delete the object
}
~TypeMap() {
// cleanup all pointers
for(auto& [name, ptrVariant] : typemap)
std::visit([](auto ptr) { delete ptr; }, ptrVariant);
}
2. Consider using std::type_index instead of const char* as map key
std::type_info::name() returns an implementation-defined name for the given type, so you have no guarantee that you will get an unique name for a given type.
Returns an implementation defined null-terminated character string containing the name of the type. No guarantees are given; in particular, the returned string can be identical for several types and change between invocations of the same program.
std::type_index on the other hand is build specifically for this purpose - using types as keys - and comes with all comparison operators & a std::hash specialization, so you can use it with std::map & std::unordered_map out of the box.
e.g.:
template <class... T>
class TypeMap
{
using vari_cmps = std::variant<T*...>;
private:
template<typename Type>
void addType()
{
typemap[std::type_index(typeid(Type))] = /* something */;
}
public:
std::map<std::type_index, vari_cmps> typemap{};
TypeMap() { /* ... */ }
~TypeMap() { /* ... */ }
template<class U>
U* get() {
auto it = typemap.find(std::type_index(typeid(U)));
return std::get<U*>(it->second);
}
};
Consider using std::tuple
std::tuple is basically built for this task, storing a list of arbitrary types:
e.g.:
template <class... T>
class TypeMap
{
private:
std::tuple<std::unique_ptr<T>...> values;
public:
TypeMap() : values(std::make_unique<T>(0)...) {
}
template<class U> requires (std::is_same_v<U, T> || ...)
U& get() { return *std::get<std::unique_ptr<U>>(values); }
template<class U> requires (std::is_same_v<U, T> || ...)
U const& get() const { return *std::get<std::unique_ptr<U>>(values); }
};
usage:
TypeMap<int, double, float> tm;
tm.get<int>() = 12;
If you want you can also store T's directly in the tuple, avoiding the additional allocations.

enable_if not triggering in the constructor?

I am trying to implement very basic shared_ptr (most functions skipped in question for simplicity), and for the case we have a pointer of base and create a derived pointer I created a separate constructor.
template<typename T>
class shared_ptr {
public:
shared_ptr(T* resource) :pointee_(resource),
refCount_(new size_t(1))
{
std::cout << typeid(resource).name();
deleter_ = [=]() {delete resource; };
}
template<typename U, std::enable_if_t<std::is_base_of_v<T, U>>>
shared_ptr(U* resource) :pointee_(resource),
refCount_(new size_t(1))
{
std::cout << typeid(resource).name();
deleter_ = [=]() {delete resource; };
}
~shared_ptr()
{
--(*refCount_);
if (!(*refCount_)) {
deleter_();
}
}
private:
size_t* refCount_;
T* pointee_;
std::function<void()> deleter_;
};
class A { int a; };
class B :public A {};
int main() {
shared_ptr<A> ptr(new B);
}
Here, although the is_base_of is 1 (I tried separately), the enable_if is not triggered and conductor is not enabled. Whereas when I remove the enable if, the overload resolution works and the constructor is
enabled.
Can anyone hint what am I missing? I don't need conceptual suggestions, just a hint what am I doing wrong or how can I enable this constructor for only class hierarchies?
P.S. I know that I can remove enable_if and compiler will warn me in case types are not convertible.
This declaration is wrong:
template<typename U, std::enable_if_t<std::is_base_of_v<T, U>>>
When instantiated, enable_if_t yield void. This is not a valid non-type template parameter. Try using int instead:
template<typename U, std::enable_if_t<std::is_base_of_v<T, U>, int> = 0>
Also, remember that even if you're doing sfinae throught themplate parameters, they are still parameters. By adding the default parameter to = 0 it is not required to fill it when calling the function.

std::function with static allocation in c++

I am working in a memory constrained embedded environment where malloc/free new/delete are not advisable, and I'm trying to use the std::function pattern to register callbacks. I do not have access to any of the STL methods in my target code so I'm in the unfortunate situation of having to replicate some of the STL functionality myself. Function pointers are not an option for me due to the necessity for callers to have captures.
For instance, I wish to declare a class Mailbox where an onChange event can be registered
class Mailbox {
std::function<void(int,int)> onChange;
};
That way, callers can register a lambda onChange handler that could capture this or other variables that matter for handling the event.
Since this is part of an API, I want to give the users of Mailbox maximim flexibility to either provide a function pointer, a lambda or a functor.
I have managed to find a great implementation of a std::function that appears to be exceptionally low-overhead and has exactly what I need except that it involves dynamic memory.
If you look at the following code, dynamic memory is used in exactly one place, and it appears fully scoped to the object being templated, suggesting to me that its size ought to be known at compile-time.
Can anyone help me understand how to refactor this implementation so that it is fully static and removes the use of new/malloc? I'm having trouble understanding why the size of CallableT wouldn't be calculable at compile-time.
Code below (not for the faint of heart). Note, it uses make_unique / unique_ptr but those can easily be substituted with new and * and I have tested that use case successfully.
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <cassert>
using namespace std;
template <typename T>
class naive_function;
template <typename ReturnValue, typename... Args>
class naive_function<ReturnValue(Args...)> {
public:
template <typename T>
naive_function& operator=(T t) {
callable_ = std::make_unique<CallableT<T>>(t);
return *this;
}
ReturnValue operator()(Args... args) const {
assert(callable_);
return callable_->Invoke(args...);
}
private:
class ICallable {
public:
virtual ~ICallable() = default;
virtual ReturnValue Invoke(Args...) = 0;
};
template <typename T>
class CallableT : public ICallable {
public:
CallableT(const T& t)
: t_(t) {
}
~CallableT() override = default;
ReturnValue Invoke(Args... args) override {
return t_(args...);
}
private:
T t_;
};
std::unique_ptr<ICallable> callable_;
};
void func() {
cout << "func" << endl;
}
struct functor {
void operator()() {
cout << "functor" << endl;
}
};
int main() {
naive_function<void()> f;
f = func;
f();
f = functor();
f();
f = []() { cout << "lambda" << endl; };
f();
}
Edit: added clarification on STL
The name for what you're looking for is "in-place function". At least one very good implementation exists today:
sg14::inplace_function<R(A...), Size, Align>
There is also tj::inplace_any<Size, Align>, if you need/want the semantics of any.
Let me preface this answer by saying that storing a general callable faces an interesting choice in terms of memory management. Yes, we can deduce the size of any callable at compile time but we can not store any callable into the same object without memory management. That's because our own object needs to have size independently of the callables its supposed to store but those can be arbitrarily big.
To put this reasoning into one sentence: The layout of our class (and its interface) needs to be compiled without knowledge about all of the callers.
This leaves us with essentially 3 choices
We embrace memory management. We dynamically copy the callable and properly manage that memory through means of unique pointer (std or boost), or through custom calls to new and delete. This is what the original code you found does and is also done by std::function.
We only allow certain callables. We create some custom storage inside our object to hold some forms of callables. This storage has a pre-determined size and we reject any callable given that can not adhere to this requirement (e.g. by a static_assert). Note that this does not necessarily restrict the set of possible callers. Instead, any user of the interface could set up a proxy-class holding merely a pointer but forwarding the call operator. We could even offer such a proxy class ourselves as part of the library. But this does nothing more than shifting the point of allocation from inside the function implementation to outside. It's still worth a try, and #radosław-cybulski comes closest to this in his answer.
We don't do memory management. We could design our interface in a way that it deliberately refuses to take ownership of the callable given to it. This way, we don't need to to memory management and this part is completely up to our caller. This is what I will give code for below. It is not a drop-in replacement for std::function but the only way I see to have a generic, allocation-free, copiable type for the purpose you inteded it.
And here is the code for possibility 3, completely without allocation and fully self-contained (does not need any library import)
template<typename>
class FunctionReference;
namespace detail {
template<typename T>
static T& forward(T& t) { return t; }
template<typename T>
static T&& forward(T&& t) { return static_cast<T&&>(t); }
template<typename C, typename R, typename... Args>
constexpr auto get_call(R (C::* o)(Args...)) // We take the argument for sfinae
-> typename FunctionReference<R(Args...)>::ptr_t {
return [](void* t, Args... args) { return (static_cast<C*>(t)->operator())(forward<Args>(args)...); };
}
template<typename C, typename R, typename... Args>
constexpr auto get_call(R (C::* o)(Args...) const) // We take the argument for sfinae
-> typename FunctionReference<R(Args...)>::ptr_t {
return [](void* t, Args... args) { return (static_cast<const C*>(t)->operator())(forward<Args>(args)...); };
}
template<typename R, typename... Args>
constexpr auto expand_call(R (*)(Args...))
-> typename FunctionReference<R(Args...)>::ptr_t {
return [](void* t, Args... args) { return (static_cast<R (*)(Args...)>(t))(forward<Args>(args)...); };
}
}
template<typename R, typename... Args>
class FunctionReference<R(Args...)> {
public:
using signature_t = R(Args...);
using ptr_t = R(*)(void*, Args...);
private:
void* self;
ptr_t function;
public:
template<typename C>
FunctionReference(C* c) : // Pointer to embrace that we do not manage this object
self(c),
function(detail::get_call(&C::operator()))
{ }
using rawfn_ptr_t = R (*)(Args...);
FunctionReference(rawfn_ptr_t fnptr) :
self(fnptr),
function(detail::expand_call(fnptr))
{ }
R operator()(Args... args) {
return function(self, detail::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
};
For seeing how this then works in action, go to https://godbolt.org/g/6mKoca
Try this:
template <class A> class naive_function;
template <typename ReturnValue, typename... Args>
class naive_function<ReturnValue(Args...)> {
public:
naive_function() { }
template <typename T>
naive_function(T t) : set_(true) {
assert(sizeof(CallableT<T>) <= sizeof(callable_));
new (_get()) CallableT<T>(t);
}
template <typename T>
naive_function(T *ptr, ReturnValue(T::*t)(Args...)) : set_(true) {
assert(sizeof(CallableT<T>) <= sizeof(callable_));
new (_get()) CallableT<T>(ptr, t);
}
naive_function(const naive_function &c) : set_(c.set_) {
if (c.set_) c._get()->Copy(&callable_);
}
~naive_function() {
if (set_) _get()->~ICallable();
}
naive_function &operator = (const naive_function &c) {
if (this != &c) {
if (set_) _get()->~ICallable();
if (c.set_) {
set_ = true;
c._get()->Copy(&callable_);
}
else
set_ = false;
}
return *this;
}
ReturnValue operator()(Args... args) const {
return _get()->Invoke(args...);
}
ReturnValue operator()(Args... args) {
return _get()->Invoke(args...);
}
private:
class ICallable {
public:
virtual ~ICallable() = default;
virtual ReturnValue Invoke(Args...) = 0;
virtual void Copy(void *dst) const = 0;
};
ICallable *_get() {
return ((ICallable*)&callable_);
}
const ICallable *_get() const { return ((const ICallable*)&callable_); }
template <typename T>
class CallableT : public ICallable {
public:
CallableT(const T& t)
: t_(t) {
}
~CallableT() override = default;
ReturnValue Invoke(Args... args) override {
return t_(std::forward<ARGS>(args)...);
}
void Copy(void *dst) const override {
new (dst) CallableT(*this);
}
private:
T t_;
};
template <typename T>
class CallableT<ReturnValue(T::*)(Args...)> : public ICallable {
public:
CallableT(T *ptr, ReturnValue(T::*)(Args...))
: ptr_(ptr), t_(t) {
}
~CallableT() override = default;
ReturnValue Invoke(Args... args) override {
return (ptr_->*t_)(std::forward<ARGS>(args)...);
}
void Copy(void *dst) const override {
new (dst) CallableT(*this);
}
private:
T *ptr_;
ReturnValue(T::*t_)(Args...);
};
static constexpr size_t size() {
auto f = []()->void {};
return std::max(
sizeof(CallableT<void(*)()>),
std::max(
sizeof(CallableT<decltype(f)>),
sizeof(CallableT<void (CallableT<void(*)()>::*)()>)
)
);
};
typedef unsigned char callable_array[size()];
typename std::aligned_union<0, callable_array, CallableT<void(*)()>, CallableT<void (CallableT<void(*)()>::*)()>>::type callable_;
bool set_ = false;
};
Keep in mind, that sort of tricks tend to be slightly fragile.
In this case to avoid memory allocation i used unsigned char[] array of assumed max size - max of CallableT with pointer to function, pointer to member function and lambda object. Types of pointer to function and member function dont matter, as standard guarantees, that for all types those pointers will have the same size. Lambda should be pointer to object, but if for some reason isnt and it's size will change depending on lambda types, then you're out of luck.
First callable_ is initialized with placement new and correct CallableT type. Then, when you try to call, i use beginning of callable_ as pointer to ICallable. This all is standard safe.
Keep in mind, that you copy naive_function object, it's template argument T's copy operator is NOT called.
UPDATE: some improvements (at least try to force alignment) + addition of copying constructor / copy assignment.
My attempt to run the solution given Here, encountered with some issues. After fixing them, seems to work fine.
Will be happy for any review as I am not a c++ expert!
Issues and fixes:
error: lambda expression in an unevaluated operand.
removed the decltype. ( was not present in original code so I guess its safe(???)
using aligned_t = detail::aligned_union<0,
CallableT<void(*)()>,
//CallableT<decltype([]()->void {})>,
CallableT<void (CallableT<void(*)()>::*)()>
>;
Under C++11, errors in code block:
error: fields must have a constant size: 'variable length array in structure' extension will never be supported
error: 'aligned' attribute requires integer constant
error: constexpr variable 'alignment_value' must be initialized by a constant expression
(Note: this code is replacing std::aligned_union)
namespace detail {
template <size_t Len, class... Types>
struct aligned_union {
static constexpr size_t alignment_value = std::max({alignof(Types)...}); // ERROR HERE C++11
struct type {
alignas(alignment_value) char _s[std::max({Len, sizeof(Types)...})]; // ERROR HERE C++11
};
};
}
Used 'external' help from ETLCPP - which has support for embedded, file: largest.h.
Error block was replaced with :
#include"etl/largest.h"
template<typename ...Types>
using largest_t = typename etl::largest_type<Types...>::type;
namespace detail {
template <size_t Len, class... Types>
struct aligned_union {
static constexpr size_t alignment_value = etl::largest_alignment<Types...>::value; //std::max({alignof(Types)...});
struct type {
alignas(alignment_value) char _s[sizeof(largest_t<Types...>)]; //[std::max({Len, sizeof(Types)...})];
};
};
}
Looked redundant, removed:
//static constexpr size_t size() {
// auto f = []()->void {};
// return std::max(
// sizeof(CallableT<void(*)()>),
// std::max(
// sizeof(CallableT<decltype(f)>),
// sizeof(CallableT<void (CallableT<void(*)()>::*)()>)
// )
// );
//};
replaced std::forward with etl::forward file: utility.h
Had anew ,and delete errors : Undefined symbol operator delete
(void)*
So added ( I never allocate.. ):
// Define placement new if no new header is available
inline void* operator new(size_t, void* p) { return p; }
inline void* operator new[](size_t, void* p) { return p; }
inline void operator delete(void*, void*) {}
inline void operator delete[](void*, void*) {}
inline void operator delete[](void*) {}
Still getting a warning thought (???):
: warning: replacement function 'operator delete' cannot be declared 'inline' [-Winline-new-delete]
inline void operator delete(void* ) {}
Linker error:
Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol __cxa_pure_virtual ).
Probably because of virtual distractor : (ref)
virtual ~ICallable() = default;
Had to add this : ( any other solution ???)
extern "C" void __cxa_pure_virtual() { while (1); }

Unpack function parameter types in the definition of another template function

I'm making a class template to encode function pointers. The function can have any result type and number / type of parameters. This is what I have:
LPVOID EncodePtr(LPVOID ptr) {
// Encode...
return ptr;
}
LPVOID DecodePtr(LPVOID ptr) {
// Decode...
return ptr;
}
template<class T>
class encoded_ptr {
public:
typedef encoded_ptr<T> _Myt;
encoded_ptr() {
ptr_ = (T*)EncodePtr(nullptr);
}
// Irresponsible?
template<class _OtherType>
encoded_ptr(_OtherType ptr) {
ptr_ = (T*)DecodePtr((LPVOID)ptr);
}
~encoded_ptr() {
ptr_ = (T*)EncodePtr(nullptr);
}
// Makes it possible to call the function directly
template<class... _Args>
typename std::result_of<T*(_Args...)>::type operator()(_Args... _Ax) {
T* fn = get();
return fn(_Ax...);
}
T* get() const {
return (T*)DecodePtr((LPVOID)ptr_);
}
bool is_set() {
return (get() != nullptr);
}
private:
T* ptr_;
};
It works as expected. Eg.:
encoded_ptr<decltype(MessageBoxA)> MsgBox;
MsgBox = &MessageBoxA; // Could also initialize in the constructor
// (HWND)0 is justified by the actual problem in the question
MsgBox((HWND)0, "Test message!", "Test", 0);
The first problem is that the way the parenthesis operator () is declared doesn't allow Visual Studio's IntelliSense to make its magic and give me hints about the function parameters:
template<class... _Args>
typename std::result_of<T*(_Args...)>::type operator()(_Args... _Ax) {
T* fn = get();
return fn(_Ax...);
}
Instead of using (_Args... _Ax), I'd like to unpack the actual function parameters so that IntelliSense can give hints correctly.
Current behaviour is:
Expected behaviour is:
The second problem is that calling the function this way, the compiler doesn't do basic casts, forcing me to cast NULL to (void*)NULL, 0 to (HWND)0, etc. This is annoying when using functions with a lot of parameters.
Maybe there are some mistakes in the implementation but I'm not a template expert. Also, I don't know if the title of the question fits properly.
I appreciate any help.
EDIT:
What I've tried so far (#OlegBogdanov's suggestion):
template<class T, class... Args>
class encoded_ptr;
template<class T, class... Args>
class encoded_ptr<T(Args...)> {
public:
typedef encoded_ptr<T> _Myt;
using Fptr = T(*)(Args...);
encoded_ptr(Fptr ptr) {
ptr_ = (Fptr)EncodePtr((LPVOID)ptr);
}
// Makes it possible to call the function directly
typename T operator()(Args... _Ax) {
Fptr fn = get();
return fn(std::forward<Args>(_Ax)...);
}
Fptr get() const {
return (T*)DecodePtr((LPVOID)ptr_);
}
bool is_set() {
return (get() != nullptr);
}
private:
Fptr ptr_;
};
Result: Cannot instantiate / use the constructor: Incomplete type is not allowed.
EDIT:
That was the right direction, the problem was the calling convention.
Changed:
class encoded_ptr<T(Args...)> to class encoded_ptr<T(__stdcall)(Args...)>, and
using Fptr = T(*)(Args...) to using Fptr = T(__stdcall*)(Args...)
I'm trying to detect the calling convention instead of having it hardcoded.
I think your expectations of
template<class... _Args>
typename std::result_of<T*(_Args...)>::type operator()(_Args... _Ax) {
T* fn = get();
return fn(_Ax...);
}
are wrong. It completely ignore's your target functions argument list (you have used poor mans type erasure) and passes (I wanted to use word 'forwards' but that would be inaccurate) whatever caller gives in. Thus 0 in
MsgBox(0, "Test message!", "Test", 0);
is deduced as int and you have to cast it to HWND, there's no way compiler would guess it otherwise.
What you are really doing is re-inventing the std::function or sort of wrapper above it.
If you really think that std::function is not enough for your needs you will have to copy parts of its implementation, namely you would need to have at least
template<class R, class... Args>
class encoded_ptr; // leaving this undefined
template<class R, class... Args>
class encoded_ptr<R(Args...)> {
using Fptr = R(*)(Args...);
encoded_ptr(Fptr ptr) {
ptr_ = (T*)DecodePtr((LPVOID)ptr);
}
...
to capture argument list in your type
and call operator would re-use it instead of randomly typed passed arguments:
// this must not be here -> template<class... _Args>
R operator()(Args... _Ax) {
T* fn = get()
return fn(std::forward<Args>(_Ax)...);
}
Edit:
You can't store but T* anymore, T is just a return type, store by Fptr

Can I create class factory for a constructor with parameter?

I am using a class factory to create objects dynamically. I used this answer for its simplicity (and because I am using Qt).
But now I realize I must add an argument to my constructor
Item(bool newItem /* = true*/);
instead of
Item();
for the code in the referred answer:
template <typename T>
class ClassFactory
{
public:
template <typename TDerived>
void registerType(QString shape)
{
_createFuncs[shape] = &createFunc<TDerived>;
}
T* create(QString shape)
{
typename QMap<QString, PCreateFunc>::const_iterator it = _createFuncs.find(shape);
if (it != _createFuncs.end())
{
return it.value()();
}
return NULL;
}
private:
template <typename TDerived>
static T* createFunc()
{
return new TDerived();
}
typedef T* (*PCreateFunc)();
QMap<QString, PCreateFunc> _createFuncs;
};
I registered the class
classFactory.registerType <Type1_Item> ("type1");
when needed, I called
Item* item = classFactory.create("type1");
I am trying to add an additional argument in the class factory, to represent the constructor argument, but my attempts all result in error.
Why do I need it : simple case:
create a new object - sets defaults; for certain objects, it requires an open file dialog since data has to be loaded from a file.
load an object - fills data, including the filename for objects that contain file info
To be able to call the "load" function, an object must exist - which means that if I create a new object, I will trigger an open file dialog even though I do not need it.
The work around that I see is, to have a constructor followed by a setup function. But... that means constructing an object always requires a 2-function call, which seems like bad design.
that is why I am looking for a way to register and call the classes using simple calls like
classFactory.registerType <Type1_Item> ("type1", bool);
Item* item = classFactory.create("type1", true);
Is it possible, and how can I do it ?
The one way I can think of involves requiring that the arguments match exactly. First, we're going to store our functions using boost::any. This is because they may have different types, so we need a heterogenous container:
QMap<QString, boost::any> _createFuncs;
Our register function will create a specific function pointer to store in said any:
template <typename TDerived, typename... T>
void registerType(QString shape)
{
_createFuncs[shape] = &createFunc<TDerived, T...>;
}
where createFunc now takes extra arguments:
template <typename TDerived, typename... Args>
static T* createFunc(Args... args)
{
return new TDerived(args...);
}
The key is what we do on the creation side. We need to check to see if the any we have stored for the particular type is the right type:
template <typename... Args>
T* create(QString shape, Args... args)
{
using FPtr = T*(*)(Args...);
auto it = _createFuncs.find(shape);
if (it != _createFuncs.end())
{
// ok, it points to some any. is it the right any?
FPtr* fptr = boost::any_cast<FPtr>(&it.value());
if (fptr) {
return (*fptr)(args...);
}
// alternatively to the above, we can have createFunc
// throw bad_any_cast if you pass the wrong arguments
// which could be a loud, explicit failure rather than
// a silent one
return boost::any_cast<FPtr>(it.value())(args...);
}
return nullptr;
}
That will allow this to work:
classFactory.registerType<Item, bool>("type1");
^^^^^^
arg list
Item* item = classFactory.create("type1", true);
Item* item2 = classFactory.create<bool>("type1", 1);
But this will fail, since the any takes a bool, not an int:
Item* item3 = classFactory.create("type1", 1);
#Barry's answer is more than complete. However, if you are just interested in a simplified factory that can construct objects that have constructors taking different parameters, you can do something like:
// Factory method for classes having constructors
// that take an arbitary number of parameters
#include <memory>
class Factory
{
public:
template<typename T, typename... Params>
static std::unique_ptr<T> create(Params... params)
{
return std::make_unique<T>(params...);
}
};
struct Foo
{
Foo(int) {};
};
struct Bar
{
Bar(bool, double) {};
};
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<Foo> foo = Factory::create<Foo>(42);
std::shared_ptr<Bar> bar = Factory::create<Bar>(true, 42.5);
}
Note that I used smart pointers here, so you don't need to keep track of new/deletes anymore.
You may use this modified version
template <typename T, typename ... Ts>
class ClassFactory
{
public:
template <typename TDerived>
void registerType(QString shape)
{
_createFuncs[shape] = &createFunc<TDerived>;
}
T* create(QString shape, Ts... args)
{
typename QMap<QString, PCreateFunc>::const_iterator it = _createFuncs.find(shape);
if (it != _createFuncs.end())
{
return it.value()(args...);
}
return nullptr;
}
private:
template <typename TDerived>
static T* createFunc(Ts... args)
{
return new TDerived(args);
}
typedef T* (*PCreateFunc)(Ts...);
QMap<QString, PCreateFunc> _createFuncs;
};
And use it
ClassFactory<Item, bool> classFactory;
classFactory.registerType <Type1_Item> ("type1");
Item* item = classFactory.create("type1", true);
If all the objects have the same parameter types (here a bool), just change the create function like this:
T* create(QString shape, bool param) //modified
{
typename QMap<QString, PCreateFunc>::const_iterator it = _createFuncs.find(shape);
if (it != _createFuncs.end())
{
return it.value()(param); //modified
}
return NULL;
}
And change createFunc also:
static T* createFunc(bool param)
{
return new TDerived(param);
}
typedef T* (*PCreateFunc)(bool);
I've done this using C++11 parameter packs:
// pack.cc
#include <utility>
template<class T, typename... P>
T * create(P&&... params)
{
return new T(std::forward<P>(params)...);
}
class X
{
public:
X() {}
};
class Y
{
public:
Y(int) {}
};
int main()
{
X * x = create<X>();
Y * y = create<Y>(1);
delete x;
delete y;
}
Compile this example g++ -std=c++11 -o pack pack.cc