Related
I'm just wondering should I use std::size_t for loops and stuff instead of int?
For instance:
#include <cstdint>
int main()
{
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
// std::size_t OK here? Or should I use, say, unsigned int instead?
}
}
In general, what is the best practice regarding when to use std::size_t?
A good rule of thumb is for anything that you need to compare in the loop condition against something that is naturally a std::size_t itself.
std::size_t is the type of any sizeof expression and as is guaranteed to be able to express the maximum size of any object (including any array) in C++. By extension it is also guaranteed to be big enough for any array index so it is a natural type for a loop by index over an array.
If you are just counting up to a number then it may be more natural to use either the type of the variable that holds that number or an int or unsigned int (if large enough) as these should be a natural size for the machine.
size_t is the result type of the sizeof operator.
Use size_t for variables that model size or index in an array. size_t conveys semantics: you immediately know it represents a size in bytes or an index, rather than just another integer.
Also, using size_t to represent a size in bytes helps making the code portable.
The size_t type is meant to specify the size of something so it's natural to use it, for example, getting the length of a string and then processing each character:
for (size_t i = 0, max = strlen (str); i < max; i++)
doSomethingWith (str[i]);
You do have to watch out for boundary conditions of course, since it's an unsigned type. The boundary at the top end is not usually that important since the maximum is usually large (though it is possible to get there). Most people just use an int for that sort of thing because they rarely have structures or arrays that get big enough to exceed the capacity of that int.
But watch out for things like:
for (size_t i = strlen (str) - 1; i >= 0; i--)
which will cause an infinite loop due to the wrapping behaviour of unsigned values (although I've seen compilers warn against this). This can also be alleviated by the (slightly harder to understand but at least immune to wrapping problems):
for (size_t i = strlen (str); i-- > 0; )
By shifting the decrement into a post-check side-effect of the continuation condition, this does the check for continuation on the value before decrement, but still uses the decremented value inside the loop (which is why the loop runs from len .. 1 rather than len-1 .. 0).
By definition, size_t is the result of the sizeof operator. size_t was created to refer to sizes.
The number of times you do something (10, in your example) is not about sizes, so why use size_t? int, or unsigned int, should be ok.
Of course it is also relevant what you do with i inside the loop. If you pass it to a function which takes an unsigned int, for example, pick unsigned int.
In any case, I recommend to avoid implicit type conversions. Make all type conversions explicit.
short answer:
Almost never. Use signed version ptrdiff_t or non-standard ssize_t. Use function std::ssize instead of std::size.
long answer:
Whenever you need to have a vector of char bigger that 2gb on a 32 bit system. In every other use case, using a signed type is much safer than using an unsigned type.
example:
std::vector<A> data;
[...]
// calculate the index that should be used;
size_t i = calc_index(param1, param2);
// doing calculations close to the underflow of an integer is already dangerous
// do some bounds checking
if( i - 1 < 0 ) {
// always false, because 0-1 on unsigned creates an underflow
return LEFT_BORDER;
} else if( i >= data.size() - 1 ) {
// if i already had an underflow, this becomes true
return RIGHT_BORDER;
}
// now you have a bug that is very hard to track, because you never
// get an exception or anything anymore, to detect that you actually
// return the false border case.
return calc_something(data[i-1], data[i], data[i+1]);
The signed equivalent of size_t is ptrdiff_t, not int. But using int is still much better in most cases than size_t. ptrdiff_t is long on 32 and 64 bit systems.
This means that you always have to convert to and from size_t whenever you interact with a std::containers, which not very beautiful. But on a going native conference the authors of c++ mentioned that designing std::vector with an unsigned size_t was a mistake.
If your compiler gives you warnings on implicit conversions from ptrdiff_t to size_t, you can make it explicit with constructor syntax:
calc_something(data[size_t(i-1)], data[size_t(i)], data[size_t(i+1)]);
if just want to iterate a collection, without bounds cheking, use range based for:
for(const auto& d : data) {
[...]
}
here some words from Bjarne Stroustrup (C++ author) at going native
For some people this signed/unsigned design error in the STL is reason enough, to not use the std::vector, but instead an own implementation.
size_t is a very readable way to specify the size dimension of an item - length of a string, amount of bytes a pointer takes, etc.
It's also portable across platforms - you'll find that 64bit and 32bit both behave nicely with system functions and size_t - something that unsigned int might not do (e.g. when should you use unsigned long
Use std::size_t for indexing/counting C-style arrays.
For STL containers, you'll have (for example) vector<int>::size_type, which should be used for indexing and counting vector elements.
In practice, they are usually both unsigned ints, but it isn't guaranteed, especially when using custom allocators.
Soon most computers will be 64-bit architectures with 64-bit OS:es running programs operating on containers of billions of elements. Then you must use size_t instead of int as loop index, otherwise your index will wrap around at the 2^32:th element, on both 32- and 64-bit systems.
Prepare for the future!
size_t is returned by various libraries to indicate that the size of that container is non-zero. You use it when you get once back :0
However, in the your example above looping on a size_t is a potential bug. Consider the following:
for (size_t i = thing.size(); i >= 0; --i) {
// this will never terminate because size_t is a typedef for
// unsigned int which can not be negative by definition
// therefore i will always be >= 0
printf("the never ending story. la la la la");
}
the use of unsigned integers has the potential to create these types of subtle issues. Therefore imho I prefer to use size_t only when I interact with containers/types that require it.
When using size_t be careful with the following expression
size_t i = containner.find("mytoken");
size_t x = 99;
if (i-x>-1 && i+x < containner.size()) {
cout << containner[i-x] << " " << containner[i+x] << endl;
}
You will get false in the if expression regardless of what value you have for x.
It took me several days to realize this (the code is so simple that I did not do unit test), although it only take a few minutes to figure the source of the problem. Not sure it is better to do a cast or use zero.
if ((int)(i-x) > -1 or (i-x) >= 0)
Both ways should work. Here is my test run
size_t i = 5;
cerr << "i-7=" << i-7 << " (int)(i-7)=" << (int)(i-7) << endl;
The output: i-7=18446744073709551614 (int)(i-7)=-2
I would like other's comments.
It is often better not to use size_t in a loop. For example,
vector<int> a = {1,2,3,4};
for (size_t i=0; i<a.size(); i++) {
std::cout << a[i] << std::endl;
}
size_t n = a.size();
for (size_t i=n-1; i>=0; i--) {
std::cout << a[i] << std::endl;
}
The first loop is ok. But for the second loop:
When i=0, the result of i-- will be ULLONG_MAX (assuming size_t = unsigned long long), which is not what you want in a loop.
Moreover, if a is empty then n=0 and n-1=ULLONG_MAX which is not good either.
size_t is an unsigned type that can hold maximum integer value for your architecture, so it is protected from integer overflows due to sign (signed int 0x7FFFFFFF incremented by 1 will give you -1) or short size (unsigned short int 0xFFFF incremented by 1 will give you 0).
It is mainly used in array indexing/loops/address arithmetic and so on. Functions like memset() and alike accept size_t only, because theoretically you may have a block of memory of size 2^32-1 (on 32bit platform).
For such simple loops don't bother and use just int.
I have been struggling myself with understanding what and when to use it. But size_t is just an unsigned integral data type which is defined in various header files such as <stddef.h>, <stdio.h>, <stdlib.h>, <string.h>, <time.h>, <wchar.h> etc.
It is used to represent the size of objects in bytes hence it's used as the return type by the sizeof operator. The maximum permissible size is dependent on the compiler; if the compiler is 32 bit then it is simply a typedef (alias) for unsigned int but if the compiler is 64 bit then it would be a typedef for unsigned long long. The size_t data type is never negative(excluding ssize_t)
Therefore many C library functions like malloc, memcpy and strlen declare their arguments and return type as size_t.
/ Declaration of various standard library functions.
// Here argument of 'n' refers to maximum blocks that can be
// allocated which is guaranteed to be non-negative.
void *malloc(size_t n);
// While copying 'n' bytes from 's2' to 's1'
// n must be non-negative integer.
void *memcpy(void *s1, void const *s2, size_t n);
// the size of any string or `std::vector<char> st;` will always be at least 0.
size_t strlen(char const *s);
size_t or any unsigned type might be seen used as loop variable as loop variables are typically greater than or equal to 0.
size_t is an unsigned integral type, that can represent the largest integer on you system.
Only use it if you need very large arrays,matrices etc.
Some functions return an size_t and your compiler will warn you if you try to do comparisons.
Avoid that by using a the appropriate signed/unsigned datatype or simply typecast for a fast hack.
size_t is unsigned int. so whenever you want unsigned int you can use it.
I use it when i want to specify size of the array , counter ect...
void * operator new (size_t size); is a good use of it.
While reading this question, I've seen the first comment saying that:
size_t for length is not a great idea, the proper types are signed ones for optimization/UB reasons.
followed by another comment supporting the reasoning. Is it true?
The question is important, because if I were to write e.g. a matrix library, the image dimensions could be size_t, just to avoid checking if they are negative. But then all loops would naturally use size_t. Could this impact on optimization?
size_t being unsigned is mostly an historical accident - if your world is 16 bit, going from 32767 to 65535 maximum object size is a big win; in current-day mainstream computing (where 64 and 32 bit are the norm) the fact that size_t is unsigned is mostly a nuisance.
Although unsigned types have less undefined behavior (as wraparound is guaranteed), the fact that they have mostly "bitfield" semantics is often cause of bugs and other bad surprises; in particular:
difference between unsigned values is unsigned as well, with the usual wraparound semantics, so if you may expect a negative value you have to cast beforehand;
unsigned a = 10, b = 20;
// prints UINT_MAX-10, i.e. 4294967286 if unsigned is 32 bit
std::cout << a-b << "\n";
more in general, in signed/unsigned comparisons and mathematical operations unsigned wins (so the signed value is casted to unsigned implicitly) which, again, leads to surprises;
unsigned a = 10;
int b = -2;
if(a < b) std::cout<<"a < b\n"; // prints "a < b"
in common situations (e.g. iterating backwards) the unsigned semantics are often problematic, as you'd like the index to go negative for the boundary condition
// This works fine if T is signed, loops forever if T is unsigned
for(T idx = c.size() - 1; idx >= 0; idx--) {
// ...
}
Also, the fact that an unsigned value cannot assume a negative value is mostly a strawman; you may avoid checking for negative values, but due to implicit signed-unsigned conversions it won't stop any error - you are just shifting the blame. If the user passes a negative value to your library function taking a size_t, it will just become a very big number, which will be just as wrong if not worse.
int sum_arr(int *arr, unsigned len) {
int ret = 0;
for(unsigned i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
ret += arr[i];
}
return ret;
}
// compiles successfully and overflows the array; it len was signed,
// it would just return 0
sum_arr(some_array, -10);
For the optimization part: the advantages of signed types in this regard are overrated; yes, the compiler can assume that overflow will never happen, so it can be extra smart in some situations, but generally this won't be game-changing (as in general wraparound semantics comes "for free" on current day architectures); most importantly, as usual if your profiler finds that a particular zone is a bottleneck you can modify just it to make it go faster (including switching types locally to make the compiler generate better code, if you find it advantageous).
Long story short: I'd go for signed, not for performance reasons, but because the semantics is generally way less surprising/hostile in most common scenarios.
That comment is simply wrong. When working with native pointer-sized operands on any reasonable architectute, there is no difference at the machine level between signed and unsigned offsets, and thus no room for them to have different performance properties.
As you've noted, use of size_t has some nice properties like not having to account for the possibility that a value might be negative (although accounting for it might be as simple as forbidding that in your interface contract). It also ensures that you can handle any size that a caller is requesting using the standard type for sizes/counts, without truncation or bounds checks. On the other hand, it precludes using the same type for index-offsets when the offset might need to be negative, and in some ways makes it difficult to perform certain types of comparisons (you have to write them arranged algebraically so that neither side is negative), but the same issue comes up when using signed types, in that you have to do algebraic rearrangements to ensure that no subexpression can overflow.
Ultimately you should initially always use the type that makes sense semantically to you, rather than trying to choose a type for performance properties. Only if there's a serious measured performance problem that looks like it might be improved by tradeoffs involving choice of types should you consider changing them.
I stand by my comment.
There is a simple way to check this: checking what the compiler generates.
void test1(double* data, size_t size)
{
for(size_t i = 0; i < size; i += 4)
{
data[i] = 0;
data[i+1] = 1;
data[i+2] = 2;
data[i+3] = 3;
}
}
void test2(double* data, int size)
{
for(int i = 0; i < size; i += 4)
{
data[i] = 0;
data[i+1] = 1;
data[i+2] = 2;
data[i+3] = 3;
}
}
So what does the compiler generate? I would expect loop unrolling, SIMD... for something that simple:
Let's check godbolt.
Well, the signed version has unrolling, SIMD, not the unsigned one.
I'm not going to show any benchmark, because in this example, the bottleneck is going to be on memory access, not on CPU computation. But you get the idea.
Second example, just keep the first assignment:
void test1(double* data, size_t size)
{
for(size_t i = 0; i < size; i += 4)
{
data[i] = 0;
}
}
void test2(double* data, int size)
{
for(int i = 0; i < size; i += 4)
{
data[i] = 0;
}
}
As you want gcc
OK, not as impressive as for clang, but it still generates different code.
I've got an array of bytes, declared like so:
typedef unsigned char byte;
vector<byte> myBytes = {255, 0 , 76 ...} //individual bytes no larger in value than 255
The problem I have is I need to access the raw data of the vector (without any copying of course), but I need to assign an arbitrary amount of bits to any given pointer to an element.
In other words, I need to assign, say an unsigned int to a certain position in the vector.
So given the example above, I am looking to do something like below:
myBytes[0] = static_cast<unsigned int>(76535); //assign n-bit (here 32-bit) value to any index in the vector
So that the vector data would now look like:
{2, 247, 42, 1} //raw representation of a 32-bit int (76535)
Is this possible? I kind of need to use a vector and am just wondering whether the raw data can be accessed in this way, or does how the vector stores raw data make this impossible or worse - unsafe?
Thanks in advance!
EDIT
I didn't want to add complication, but I'm constructing variously sized integer as follows:
//**N_TYPES
u16& VMTypes::u8sto16(u8& first, u8& last) {
return *new u16((first << 8) | last & 0xffff);
}
u8* VMTypes::u16to8s(u16& orig) {
u8 first = (u8)orig;
u8 last = (u8)(orig >> 8);
return new u8[2]{ first, last };
}
What's terrible about this, is I'm not sure of the endianness of the numbers generated. But I know that I am constructing and destructing them the same everywhere (I'm writing a stack machine), so if I'm not mistaken, endianness is not effected with what I'm trying to do.
EDIT 2
I am constructing ints in the following horrible way:
u32 a = 76535;
u16* b = VMTypes::u32to16s(a);
u8 aa[4] = { VMTypes::u16to8s(b[0])[0], VMTypes::u16to8s(b[0])[1], VMTypes::u16to8s(b[1])[0], VMTypes::u16to8s(b[1])[1] };
Could this then work?:
memcpy(&_stack[0], aa, sizeof(u32));
Yes, it is possible. You take the starting address by &myVector[n] and memcpy your int to that location. Make sure that you stay in the bounds of your vector.
The other way around works too. Take the location and memcpy out of it to your int.
As suggested: by using memcpy you will copy the byte representation of your integer into the vector. That byte representation or byte order may be different from your expectation. Keywords are big and little endian.
As knivil says, memcpy will work if you know the endianess of your system. However, if you want to be safe, you can do this with bitwise arithmetic:
unsigned int myInt = 76535;
const int ratio = sizeof(int) / sizeof(byte);
for(int b = 0; b < ratio; b++)
{
myBytes[b] = byte(myInt >> (8*sizeof(byte)*(ratio - b)));
}
The int can be read out of the vector using a similar pattern, if you want me to show you how let me know.
I want to modify individual bits of data, (for e.g. ints or chars). I want to do this by making a pointer, say ptr. by assigning it to some int or char, and then after incrementing ptr n times, I want to access the nth bit of that data.
Something like
// If i want to change all the 8 bits in a char variable
char c="A";
T *ptr=&c; //T is the data type of pointer I want..
int index=0;
for(index;index<8;index++)
{
*ptr=1; //Something like assigning 1 to the bit pointed by ptr...
}
There no such thing as a bit pointer in C++. You need to use two things, a byte pointer and an offset to the bit. That seems to be what you are getting towards in your code. Here's how you do the individual bit operations.
// set a bit
*ptr |= 1 << index;
// clear a bit
*ptr &= ~(1 << index);
// test a bit
if (*ptr & (1 << index))
...
The smallest addressable memory unit in C and C++ is 1 byte. So You cannot have a pointer to anything less than a byte.If you want to perform bitwise operations C and C++ provide the bitwise operators for these operations.
It is impossible to have address of individual bit, but you can utilize structures with bit fields. Like in this example from Wikipedia so:
struct box_props
{
unsigned int opaque : 1;
unsigned int fill_color : 3;
unsigned int : 4; // fill to 8 bits
unsigned int show_border : 1;
unsigned int border_color : 3;
unsigned int border_style : 2;
unsigned int : 2; // fill to 16 bits
};
Then by manipulating individual fields you will change sets of bits inside unsigned int. Technically this is identical to bitwise operations, but in this case compiler will generate the code (and you have lower chances of bug).
Be advised that you have to be cautious using bit fields.
C and C++ doesn't have a "bit pointer", technically speaking, C and C++ as such, deosn't know about "bits". You could build your own type, to do this, you need two things: A pointer to some type (char, int - probably unsigned) and a bit number. You'd then use the pointer and the bit number, along with the bitwise operators, to actually access the values.
There is nothing like a pointer to a bit
If you want all bits set to 1 then c = 0xff; is what you want, if you want to set a bit under some condition:
for(index;index<8;index++)
{
if (condition) c |= 1 << index;
}
As you can see there is no need to use a pointer
You can not read a single bit from the memory, CPU always read a full cache line, which could have different sizes for different CPUs.
But from the language point of view you can use bit fields
http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/chapter6/bitfields.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_field
I'm working on a program that requires an array to be copied many thousands/millions of times. Right now I have two ways of representing the data in the array:
An array of ints:
int someArray[8][8];
where someArray[a][b] can have a value of 0, 1, or 2, or
An array of pointers to booleans:
bool * someArray[8][8];
where someArray[a][b] can be 0 (null pointer), otherwise *someArray[a][b] can be true (corresponding to 1), or false (corresponding to 2).
Which array would be copied faster (and yes, if I made the pointers to booleans array, I would have to declare new bools every time I copy the array)?
Which would copy faster is beside the point, The overhead of allocating and freeing entries, and dereferencing the pointer to retrieve each value, for your bool* approach will swamp the cost of copying.
If you just have 3 possible values, use an array of char and that will copy 4 times faster than int. OK, that's not a scientifically proven statement but the array will be 4 times smaller.
Actually, both look more or less the same in terms of copying - an array of 32-bit ints vs an array of 32-bit pointers. If you compile as 64-bit, then the pointer would probably be bigger.
BTW, if you store pointers, you probably don't want to have a SEPARATE instance of "bool" for every field of that array, do you? That would be certainly much slower.
If you want a fast copy, reduce the size as much as possible, Either:
use char instead of int, or
devise a custom class with bit manipulations for this array. If you represent one value as two bits - a "null" bit and "value-if-not-null" bit, then you'd need 128 bits = 4 ints for this whole array of 64 values. This would certainly be copied very fast! But the access to any individual bit would be a bit more complex - just a few cycles more.
OK, you made me curious :) I rolled up something like this:
struct BitArray {
public:
static const int DIMENSION = 8;
enum BitValue {
BitNull = -1,
BitTrue = 1,
BitFalse = 0
};
BitArray() {for (int i=0; i<DIMENSION; ++i) data[i] = 0;}
BitValue get(int x, int y) {
int k = x+y*DIMENSION; // [0 .. 64)
int n = k/16; // [0 .. 4)
unsigned bit1 = 1 << ((k%16)*2);
unsigned bit2 = 1 << ((k%16)*2+1);
int isnull = data[n] & bit1;
int value = data[n] & bit2;
return static_cast<BitValue>( (!!isnull)*-1 + (!isnull)*!!value );
}
void set(int x, int y, BitValue value) {
int k = x+y*DIMENSION; // [0 .. 64)
int n = k/16; // [0 .. 4)
unsigned bit1 = 1 << ((k%16)*2);
unsigned bit2 = 1 << ((k%16)*2+1);
char v = static_cast<char>(value);
// set nullbit to 1 if v== -1, else 0
if (v == -1) {
data[n] |= bit1;
} else {
data[n] &= ~bit1;
}
// set valuebit to 1 if v== 1, else 0
if (v == 1) {
data[n] |= bit2;
} else {
data[n] &= ~bit2;
}
}
private:
unsigned data[DIMENSION*DIMENSION/16];
};
The size of this object for an 8x8 array is 16 bytes, which is a nice improvement compared to 64 bytes with the solution of char array[8][8] and 256 bytes of int array[8][8].
This is probably as low as one can go here without delving into greater magic.
I would say you need to redesign your program. Converting between int x[8][8] and bool *b[8][8] "millions" of times cannot be "right" however your definition of "right" is lax.
The answer to your question will be linked to the size of the data types. Typically bool is one byte while int is not. A pointer varies in length depending on the architecture, but these days is usually 32- or 64-bits.
Not taking caching or other processor-specific optimizations into consideration, the data type that is larger will take longer to copy.
Given that you have three possible states (0, 1, 2) and 64 entries you can represent your entire structure in 128 bits. Using some utility routines and two unsigned 64-bit integers you can efficiently copy your array around very quickly.
I am not 100% sure, but I think they will take roughly the same time, though I prefer using stack allocation (since dynamic allocation might take some time looking for a free space).
Consider using short type instead of int since you do not need a wide range of numbers.
I think it might be better to use one dimension array if you really want maximum speed since using the for loops in the wrong order which the compiler use for storing multidimensional arrays (raw major or column major) could cause performance penalty!
Without knowing too much about how you use the arrays, this is a possible solution:
typedef char Array[8][8];
Array someArray, otherArray;
memcpy(someArray, otherArray, sizeof(Array));
These arrays are only 64 bytes and should copy fairly fast. You can change the data type to int but that means copying at least 256 bytes.
"copying" this array with the pointers would require a deep copy, since otherwise changing the copy will affect the original, which is probably not what you want. This is going to slow things down immensely due to the memory allocation overhead.
You can get around this by using boost::optional to represent "optional" quantities - which is the only reason you're adding the level of indirection here. There are very few situations in modern C++ where a raw pointer is really the best thing to be using :) However, since you only need a char to store the values {0, 1, 2} anyway, that will probably be better in terms of space. I am pretty sure that sizeof(boost::optional<bool>) > 1, though I haven't tested it. I would be impressed if they specialized for this :)
You could even bit-pack an array of 2-bit quantities, or use two bit-packed boolean arrays (one "mask" and then another set of actual true-false values) - using std::bitset for example. That will certainly save space and reduce copying time, although it would probably increase access time (assuming you really do need to access one value at a time).