Is there any advantage to using an r value reference when you create an object, that would otherwise be in a normal local variable?
Foo&& cn = Foo();
cn.m_flag = 1;
bar.m_foo = std::move(cn);
//cn is not used again
Foo cn;
cn.m_flag = 1;
bar.m_foo = std::move(cn); //Is it ok to move a non rvalue reference?
//cn is not used again
In the first code snippet, it seems clear that there will not be any copies, but I'd guess that in the second the compile would optimize copies out?
Also in the first snippet, where is the object actually stored in memory (in the second it is stored in the stack frame of the enclosing function)?
Those code fragments are mostly equivalent. This:
Foo&& rf = Foo();
is binding a temporary to a reference, which extends the lifetime of the temporary to that of the reference. The Foo will only be destroyed when rf goes out of scope. Which is the same behavior you get with:
Foo f;
with the exception that in the latter example f is default-initialized but in the former example rf is value-initialized. For some types, the two are equivalent. For others, they are not. If you had instead written Foo f{}, then this difference goes away.
One remaining difference pertains to copy elision:
Foo give_a_foo_rv() {
Foo&& rf = Foo();
return rf;
}
Foo give_a_foo() {
Foo f{};
return f;
}
RVO is not allowed to be performed in the first example, because rf does not have the same type as the return type of give_a_foo_rv(). Moreover, rf won't even be automatically moved into the return type because it's not an object so it doesn't have automatic storage duration, so that's an extra copy (until C++20, in which it's an extra move):
Foo f = give_a_foo_rv(); // a copy happens here!
Foo g = give_a_foo(); // no move or copy
it seems clear that there will not be any copies
That depends entirely on what moving a Foo actually does. If Foo looks like:
struct Foo {
Foo() = default;
Foo(Foo const& ) = default;
Foo& operator=(Foo const& ) = default;
// some members
};
then moving a Foo still does copying.
And yes, it is perfectly okay to std::move(f) in the second example. You don't need an object of type rvalue reference to T to move from it. That would severely limit the usefulness of moving.
Related
I am trying to return a std::unique_ptr class member (trying to move the ownership) to the caller. The following is a sample code snippet:
class A {
public:
A() : p {new int{10}} {}
static std::unique_ptr<int> Foo(A &a) {
return a.p; // ERROR: Copy constructor getting invoked
// return std::move(a.p); WORKS FINE
}
std::unique_ptr<int> p;
};
I thought the compiler (gcc-5.2.1) would be able to do return value optimization (copy elision) in this case without requiring the explicit intent via std::move(). But that isn't the case. Why not?
The following code seems to be working fine, which seems equivalent:
std::unique_ptr<int> foo() {
std::unique_ptr<int> p {new int{10}};
return p;
}
The rule in [class.copy] is:
[...] when the expression in a return statement is a (possibly
parenthesized) id-expression that names an object with automatic storage duration declared in the body or parameter-declaration-clause of the innermost enclosing function or lambda-expression, overload resolution to
select the constructor for the copy is first performed as if the object were designated by an rvalue.
In this example:
std::unique_ptr<int> foo() {
std::unique_ptr<int> p {new int{10}};
return p;
}
p is the name of an object with automatic storage duration declared in the body of the function. So rather than copying it into the return value, we first try to move it. That works fine.
But in this example:
static std::unique_ptr<int> Foo(A &a) {
return a.p;
}
that doesn't apply. a.p isn't the name of an object at all, so we don't try overload resolution as if it were an rvalue, we instead just do the normal thing: try to copy it. This fails, so you have to explicitly move() it.
That's the wording of the rule, but it might not answer your question. Why is this the rule? Basically - we're trying to be safe. If we're naming a local variable, it's always safe to move from it in a return statement. It will never be accessed again. Easy optimization, no possible downside. But in your original example, a isn't owned by this function, neither is a.p. It's not inherently safe to move from it, so the language won't try to do it automatically.
Copy elision can't apply (among other reasons) since a.p is a std::unique_ptr, which is uncopyable. And since a.p has a lifetime beyond the body of A::Foo(A&), it would be very surprising (as in, surprising to the person writing the code) if the compiler automatically tried to move from a.p, which would likely wreck the class invariants of a. It would work if you return std::move(a.p);, but that explicitly steals a.p.
Normally, rvalues can bind to const references (const SomeType&). It's built into the language. However, std::reference_wrapper<const T> does not accept an rvalue as its constructor argument since the corresponding overload is deliberately deleted. What is the reason for this inconsistency? std::reference_wrapper is "advertised" as the alternative to a reference variable for cases when we must pass by value but would like to preserve reference semantics.
In other words, if the rvalue to const & binding is considered safe, since it's built into the language, why did the designers of C++11 not allow rvalues to be wrapped in std::reference_wrapper<const T>?
When would this come handy, you may ask. For example:
class MyType{};
class Foo {
public:
Foo(const MyType& param){}
};
class MultiFoo {
public:
MultiFoo(std::initializer_list<std::reference_wrapper<const MyType>> params){}
};
int main()
{
Foo foo{MyType{}}; //ok
MultiFoo multiFoo{MyType{}, MyType{}}; //error
}
INTRODUCTION
Normally T const& and T&& can extend the lifetime of a temporary directly bound to it, but this is not applicable if the reference is "hiding" behind a constructor.
Since std::reference_wrapper is copyable (by intention), the handle to the referenced object can outlive the temporary if the std::reference_wrapper is used in such a way that the handle escapes the scope where the temporary is created.
This will lead to a lifetime mismatch between the handle and the referred to object (ie. the temporary).
LET'S PLAY "MAKE BELIEVE"
Imagine having the below, illegal, snippet; where we pretend that std::reference_wrapper has a constructor that would accept a temporary.
Let's also pretend that the temporary passed to the constructor will have its lifetime extended (even though this isn't the case, in real life it will be "dead" right after (1)).
typedef std::reference_wrapper<std::string const> string_ref;
string_ref get_ref () {
string_ref temp_ref { std::string { "temporary" } }; // (1)
return temp_ref;
}
int main () {
string_ref val = get_ref ();
val.get (); // the temporary has been deconstructed, this is dangling reference!
}
Since a temporary is created with automatic storage duration, it will be allocated on the storage bound to the scope inside get_ref.
When get_ref later returns, our temporary will be destroyed. This means that our val in main would refer to an invalid object, since the original object is no longer in existance.
The above is the reason why std::reference_wrapper's constructor doesn't have an overload that accepts temporaries.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
struct A {
A (std::string const& r)
: ref (r)
{ }
std::string const& ref;
};
A foo { std::string { "temporary " } };
foo.ref = ...; // DANGLING REFERENCE!
The lifetime of std::string { "temporary" } will not be extended, as can be read in the standard.
12.2p5 Temporary objects [class.temporary]
The temporary to which the reference is bound or the temporary that is the complete object of a subobject to which the reference is bound persists for the lifetime of the reference except:
A temporary bound to a reference member in a constructor's ctor-initializer (12.6.2) persists until the constructor exits.
A temporary bound to a reference parameter in a function call (5.2.2) persists until the completion of the full-expression containing the call.
The lifetime of a temporary bound to the returned value in a function return statement (6.6.3) is not extended; the temporary is destroyed at the end of the full-expression in the return statement.
A temporary bound to a reference in a new-initializer (5.3.4) persists until the completion of the full-expression containing the new-initializer.
Note: it's important to note that a constructor is nothing more than a "fancy" function, called upon object construction.
Binding a temporary directly to a reference prolongs its lifetime.
struct Foo {};
Foo f() { return {}; }
void g() {
f(); // temporary destroyed at end of full-expression
const Foo& r = f(); // temporary destroyed at end of scope
// r can still be used here ...
// ...
// all the way down to here
}
However, it must bind directly to the temporary. Consider the following example:
struct Bar {
Bar(const Foo& f): r(f) {}
const Foo& r;
};
void h() {
Bar b(f());
// binding occurs through parameter "f" rather than directly to temporary "f()"
// b.r is now a dangling reference! lifetime not extended
}
Which would make it quite useless to wrap a temporary, even if you could.
Note: an actual reference wrapper object uses a pointer, so that it can be reassigned:
struct Baz {
Baz(const Foo& f): p(std::addressof(f)) {}
Baz& operator=(const Foo& f) { p = std::addressof(f); return *this; }
const Foo* p;
};
The same still applies: the temporary passed into the constructor or assignment operator will be destroyed at the end of the full-expression containing the call.
You should not copy a const reference as it does not necessarily keep the referenced object alive. The following code shows the problem:
#include <iostream>
struct X { int x; };
struct Foo {
const X& a;
Foo(const X& na) : a(na) {} // here na is still OK
};
int main()
{
Foo foo{X{3}}; // the temporary exists only for this expression
// now the temporary is no longer alive and foo.a is a dangling reference
std::cout << foo.a.x << std::endl; // undefined behavior
}
The const reference keeps the temporary X{3} alive for the constructor of Foo, but not for the object itself. You get a dangling reference.
To protected you from this problem the usage of temporary objects with std::reference_wrapper and std::ref has been disabled.
Since a const T&& variable can nor be moved, neither modified, there's no reason for using it (there's no adventages or differences over a const T&). Even more, a posterior use of that reference can be dangerous if the corresponding temporary is no longer alive (actually, it's dangerous, because it invokes undefined behaviour in such a case).
The deletion of its rvalue-reference constructor is not a bad idea after all.
Although it took me a while to get used to it, I now grew the habit of letting my functions take shared pointer parameters by lvalue-reference to const rather than by value (unless I need to modify the original arguments, of course, in which case I take them by lvalue-reference to non-const):
void foo(std::shared_ptr<widget> const& pWidget)
// ^^^^^^
{
// work with pWidget...
}
This has the advantage of avoiding an unnecessary copy of a shared pointer, which would mean thread-safely increasing the reference counting and potentially incurring in undesired overhead.
Now I've been wondering whether it is sane to adopt a somewhat symmetrical habit for retrieving shared pointers that are returned by value from functions, like at the end of the following code snippet:
struct X
{
// ...
std::shared_ptr<Widget> bar() const
{
// ...
return pWidget;
}
// ...
std::shared_ptr<Widget> pWidget;
};
// ...
// X x;
std::share_ptr<Widget> const& pWidget = x.bar();
// ^^^^^^
Are there any pitfalls with adopting such a coding habit? Is there any reason why I should prefer, in general, assigning a returned shared pointer to another shared pointer object rather than binding it to a reference?
This is just a remake of the old question of whether capturing a const reference to a temporary is more efficient than creating a copy. The simple answer is that it isn't. In the line:
// std::shared_ptr<Widget> bar();
std::shared_ptr<Widget> const & pWidget = bar();
The compiler needs to create a local unnamed variable (not temporary), initailize that with the call to bar() and then bind the reference to it:
std::shared_ptr<Widget> __tmp = bar();
std::shared_ptr<Widget> const & pWidget = __tmp;
In most cases it will avoid the creation of the reference and just alias the original object in the rest of the function, but at the end of the day whether the variable is called pWidget or __tmp and aliased won't give any advantage.
On the contrary, for the casual reader, it might look like bar() does not create an object but yield a reference to an already existing std::shared_ptr<Widget>, so the maintainer will have to seek out where bar() is defined to understand whether pWidget can be changed outside of the scope of this function.
Lifetime extension through binding to a const reference is a weird feature in the language that has very little practical use (namely when the reference is of a base and you don't quite care what the exact derived type returned by value is, i.e. ScopedGuard).
You may have the optimization backwards:
struct X
{
// ...
std::shared_ptr<Widget> const& bar() const
{
// ...
return pWidget;
}
// ...
std::shared_ptr<Widget> pWidget;
};
// ...
// X x;
std::share_ptr<Widget> pWidget = x.bar();
As bar is returning a member variable, it must take a copy of the shared_ptr in your version. If you return the member variable by reference the copy can be avoided.
This doesn't matter in both your original version and the version shown above, but would come up if you called:
x.bar()->baz()
In your version a new shared_ptr would be created, and then baz would be called.
In my version baz is called directly on the member copy of the shared_ptr, and the atomic reference increment/decrement is avoided.
Of course the cost of the shared_ptr copy constructor (atomic increment) is very small, and not even noticable in all but the most performance-sensetive applications. If you are writing a performance sensetive application than the better option would be to manage memory manually with a memory pool architecture and then to (carefully) use raw pointers instead.
Adding on top of what David RodrÃguez - dribeas said namely, binding to a const reference doesn't save you from making the copy and the counter is incremented anyway, the following code illustrates this point:
#include <memory>
#include <cassert>
struct X {
std::shared_ptr<int> p;
X() : p{new int} {}
std::shared_ptr<int> bar() { return p; }
};
int main() {
X x;
assert(x.p.use_count() == 1);
std::shared_ptr<int> const & p = x.bar();
assert(x.p.use_count() == 2);
return 0;
}
I tested the following code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class foo{
public:
foo() {cout<<"foo()"<<endl;}
~foo() {cout<<"~foo()"<<endl;}
};
int main()
{
foo f;
move(f);
cout<<"statement \"move(f);\" done."<<endl;
return 0;
}
The output was:
foo()
statement "move(f);" done.
~foo()
However, I expected:
foo()
~foo()
statement "move(f);" done.
According to the source code of the function move:
template<typename _Tp>
constexpr typename std::remove_reference<_Tp>::type&&
move(_Tp&& __t) noexcept
{ return static_cast<typename std::remove_reference<_Tp>::type&&>(__t); }
The returned object is a right value, So Why isn't it destroyed immediately?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I think I just confused rvalue and rvalue reference.
I modified my code:
#include <iostream>
template<typename _Tp>
constexpr typename /**/std::remove_reference<_Tp>::type /* no && */
/**/ mymove /**/ (_Tp&& __t) noexcept
{ return static_cast<typename std::remove_reference<_Tp>::type&&>(__t); }
using namespace std;
class foo{
public:
foo() {cout<<"foo() at "<<this<<endl;} /* use address to trace different objects */
~foo() {cout<<"~foo() at "<<this<<endl;} /* use address to trace different objects */
};
int main()
{
foo f;
mymove(f);
cout<<"statement \"mymove(f);\" done."<<endl;
return 0;
}
And now I get what I've been expecting:
foo() at 0x22fefe
~foo() at 0x22feff
statement "mymove(f);" done.
~foo() at 0x22fefe
Moving from an object doesn't change its lifetime, only its current value. Your object foo is destroyed on return from main, which is after your output.
Futhermore, std::move doesn't move from the object. It just returns an rvalue reference whose referand is the object, making it possible to move from the object.
Objects get destroyed when they go out of scope. Moving from an object doesn't change that; depending on what the move constructor or move assignment operator does, the state of the object can be different after the move, but is hasn't yet been destroyed, so the practical rule is that moving from an object must leave it in a state that can be destroyed.
Beyond that, as #R.MartinhoFernandes points out, std::move doesn't do anything. It's the object's move constructor or move assignment operator that does whatever needs to be done, and that isn't applied in a call to std::move; it's applied when the moved-from object is used to construct a new object (move constructor) or is assigned to an existing object (move assignment operator). Like this:
foo f;
foo f1(f); // applies foo's copy constructor
foo f2(std::move(f)); // applies foo's move constructor
foo f3, f4;
f3 = f; // applies foo's copy assignment operator
f4 = std::move(f1); // applies foo's move assignment operator
A std::move doesn't change objects lifetime. Roughly speaking it's nothing more than a static_cast that casts a non const lvalue to a non const rvalue reference.
The usefulness of this is overload resolution. Indeed, some functions take parameters by const lvalue reference (e.g. copy constructors) and other take by non const rvalue reference (e.g. move constructors). If the passed object is a temporary, then the compiler calls the second overload. The idea is that just after the function is called the a temporary can no longer be used (and will be destroyed). Therefore the second overload could take ownership of the temporary's resources instead of coping them.
However, the compiler will not do it for a non-temporary object (or, to be more correct for an lvalue). The reason is that the passed object has a name that remains in scope and therefore is alive could still be used (as your code demonstrate). So its internal resources might still be required and it would be a problem if they have had been moved to the other object. Nevertheless, you can instruct the compiler that it can call the second overload by using std::move. It casts the argument to a rvalue reference and, by overload resolution, the second overload is called.
The slight changed code below illustrate this point.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class foo{
public:
foo() { cout << "foo()" << endl; }
~foo() { cout << "~foo()" << endl; }
};
void g(const foo&) { cout << "lref" << endl; }
void g(foo&&) { cout << "rref" << endl; }
int main()
{
foo f;
g(f);
g(move(f));
// f is still in scope and can be referenced.
// For instance, we can call g(f) again.
// Imagine what would happen if f had been destroyed as the question's author
// originally though?
g(static_cast<foo&&>(f)); // This is equivalent to the previous line
cout<<"statement \"move(f);\" done."<<endl;
return 0;
}
The output is
foo()
lref
rref
rref
statement "move(f);" done.
~foo()
Update: (After the question has been changed to use mymove)
Notice that the new code doesn't give exactly what you said at the very beginning. Indeed it reports two calls to ~foo() rather than one.
From the displayed addresses we can see that the original object of type foo, namely, f is destroyed at the very end. Exactly as it used to be with the original code. As many have pointed out, f is destroyed only at the end of its scope (the body of function main). This is still the case.
The extra call to ~foo() reported just before the statement "mymove(f);" done. destroys another object which is a copy of f. If you add a reporting copy constructor to foo:
foo(const foo& orig) { cout << "copy foo from " << &orig << " to " << this << endl;}
Then you get an output similar to:
foo() at 0xa74203de
copy foo from 0xa74203de to 0xa74203df
~foo() at 0xa74203df
statement "move(f);" done.
~foo() at 0xa74203de
We can deduce that calling mymove yields a call to the copy constructor to copy f to another foo object. Then, this newly created object is destroyed before execution reaches the line that displays statement "move(f);" done.
The natural question now is where this copy come from? Well, notice the return type of mymove:
constexpr typename /**/std::remove_reference<_Tp>::type /* no && */`
In this example, after a simplification for clarity, this boils down to foo. That is, mymove returns a foo by value. Therefore, a copy is made to create a temporary object. As I said before, a temporary is destroyed just after the expression that creates it finishes to be evaluated (well, there are exceptions to this rule but they don't apply to this code). That explains the extra call to ~foo().
Because in the general case, the move could happen in another translation unit. In your example, the object wasn't even moved, only marked as movable. This means that the caller of std::move will not know if the object was moved or not, all he knows is, that there is an object and that it has to call the destructor at the end of the scope/lifetime of that object. std::move only marks the object as movable, it does not perform the move operation or create a moved copy that can be further moved or anything like that.
Consider:
// translation unit 1
void f( std::vector< int >&& v )
{
if( v.size() > 8 ) {
// move it
}
else {
// copy it as it's just a few entries
}
}
// translation unit 2
void f( std::vector< int >&& );
std::vector< int > g();
int main()
{
// v is created here
std::vector< int > v = g();
// it is maybe moved here
f( std::move( v ) );
// here, v still exists as an object
// when main() ends, it will be destroyed
}
In the example above, how would translation unit 2 decide whether or not to call the destructor after the std::move?
You're getting confused by the name -- std::move doesn't actually move anything. It just converts (casts) an lvalue reference into an rvalue reference, and is used to make someone else move something.
Where std::move is useful is when you have an overloaded function that takes either an lvalue or an rvalue reference. If you call such a function with a simple variable, overload resolution means you'll call the version with the lvalue reference. You can add an explicit call to std::move to instead call the rvalue reference version. No moves involved, except within the function that takes the rvalue reference.
Now the reason it is called move is the common usage where you have two constructors, one of which takes an lvalue reference (commonly called the copy constructor) and one that takes an rvalue reference (commonly called the move constructor). In this case, adding an explicit call to std::move means you call the move constructor instead of the copy constructor.
In the more general case, it's common practice to have overloaded functions that take lvalue/rvalue references where the lvalue version makes a copy of the object and the rvalue version moves the object (implicitly modifying the source object to take over any memory it uses).
Suppose code like this:
void bar(Foo& a) {
if (a.noLongerneeded())
lastUnneeded = std::move(a);
}
In this case, the caller of bar can not know that the function might in some cases end up calling the destructor of the passed object. It will feel responsible for that object, and make sure to call its destructor at any later point.
So the rule is that move may turn a valid object into a different but still valid object. Still valid means that calling methods or the destructor on that object should still yield well-defined results. Strictly speaking, move by itself does nothing except tell the receiver of such a reference that it may change the object if doing so makes sense. So it's the recipient, e.g. move constructor or move assignment operator, which does the actual moving. These operations will usually either not change the object at all, or set some pointers to nullptr, or some lengths to zero or something like that. They will however never call the destructor, since that task is left to the owner of the object.
(I'm using gcc with -O2.)
This seems like a straightforward opportunity to elide the copy constructor, since there are no side-effects to accessing the value of a field in a bar's copy of a foo; but the copy constructor is called, since I get the output meep meep!.
#include <iostream>
struct foo {
foo(): a(5) { }
foo(const foo& f): a(f.a) { std::cout << "meep meep!\n"; }
int a;
};
struct bar {
foo F() const { return f; }
foo f;
};
int main()
{
bar b;
int a = b.F().a;
return 0;
}
It is neither of the two legal cases of copy ctor elision described in 12.8/15:
Return value optimisation (where an automatic variable is returned from a function, and the copying of that automatic to the return value is elided by constructing the automatic directly in the return value) - nope. f is not an automatic variable.
Temporary initializer (where a temporary is copied to an object, and instead of constructing the temporary and copying it, the temporary value is constructed directly into the destination) - nope f is not a temporary either. b.F() is a temporary, but it isn't copied anywhere, it just has a data member accessed, so by the time you get out of F() there's nothing to elide.
Since neither of the legal cases of copy ctor elision apples, and the copying of f to the return value of F() affects the observable behaviour of the program, the standard forbids it to be elided. If you got replaced the printing with some non-observable activity, and examined the assembly, you might see that this copy constructor has been optimised away. But that would be under the "as-if" rule, not under the copy constructor elision rule.
Copy elision happens only when a copy isn't really necessary. In particular, it's when there's one object (call it A) that exists for the duration of the execution of a function, and a second object (call it B) that will be copy constructed from the first object, and immediately after that, A will be destroyed (i.e. upon exit from the function).
In this very specific case, the standard gives permission for the compiler to coalesce A and B into two separate ways of referring to the same object. Instead of requiring that A be created, then B be copy constructed from A, and then A be destroyed, it allows A and B to be considered two ways of referring to the same object, so the (one) object is created as A, and after the function returns starts to be referred to as B, but even if the copy constructor has side effects, the copy that creates B from A can still be skipped over. Also, note that in this case A (as an object separate from B) is never destroyed either -- e.g., if your dtor also had side effects, they could (would) be omitted as well.
Your code doesn't fit that pattern -- the first object does not cease to exist immediately after being used to initialize the second object. After F() returns, there are two instances of the object. That being the case, the [Named] Return Value Optimization (aka. copy elision) simply does not apply.
Demo code when copy elision would apply:
#include <iostream>
struct foo {
foo(): a(5) { }
foo(const foo& f): a(f.a) { std::cout << "meep meep!\n"; }
int a;
};
int F() {
// RVO
std::cout << "F\n";
return foo();
}
int G() {
// NRVO
std::cout << "G\n";
foo x;
return x;
}
int main() {
foo a = F();
foo b = G();
return 0;
}
Both MS VC++ and g++ optimize away both copy ctors from this code with optimization turned on. g++ optimizes both away even if optimization is turned off. With optimization turned off, VC++ optimizes away the anonymous return, but uses the copy ctor for the named return.
The copy constructor is called because a) there is no guarantee you are copying the field value without modification, and b) because your copy constructor has a side effect (prints a message).
A better way to think about copy elision is in terms of the temporary object. That is how the standard describes it. A temporary is allowed to be "folded" into a permanent object if it is copied into the permanent object immediately before its destruction.
Here you construct a temporary object in the function return. It doesn't really participate in anything, so you want it to be skipped. But what if you had done
b.F().a = 5;
if the copy were elided, and you operated on the original object, you would have modified b through a non-reference.