Inside one of my class methods I declare several local variables like this:
int findClosestPoint(double rRadius)
{
int iXIndexMult, iYIndexMult, iZIndexMult, iVoxelX, iVoxelY, iVoxelZ, iPIndexVoxel, iV, iV_From, iV_To;
double rDist, rDX, rDY, rDZ;
double rRadius2 = rRadius*rRadius;
double rMinDist = rRadius2;
int iFoundVertex = -1;
// do stuff
retrun iFoundVertex;
}
I'm calling this method thousands of times so I thought it would be a good idea to move variables declaration from method body to the class, so I recieved something like this:
int findClosestPoint(double rRadius)
{
rRadius2 = rRadius*rRadius;
rMinDist = rRadius2;
iFoundVertex = -1;
// do stuff
retrun iFoundVertex;
}
I was suprised because the result of this operation was significant performance drop in my program.
Can anyone may explain to me why that happened?
You relocated that context from local stack/register to (perhaps) heap memory. Heap requires more time to access than stack.
Always keep the scope of your variables as small as possible. This not only gives the compiler more optimization options but also makes your code more readable and avoids side effects.
What exactly causes the performance drop in your case depends on your compiler and on what exactly your function is doing in the // do stuff section.
Related
I have a function which processes data that comes as a sequence. Because of this, I need to know the value of certain variables from the last function call during the current function call.
My current approach to doing this is to use static variables. My function goes something like this:
bool processData(Object message){
static int lastVar1 = -1;
int curVar1 = message.var1;
if (curVar1 > lastVar1){
// Do something
}
lastVar1 = curVar1;
}
This is just a small sample of the code; in reality I have 10+ static variables tracking different things. My gut tells me using so many static variables probably isn't a good idea, though I have nothing to back that feeling up.
My question: Is there a better way to do this?
An alternative I've been looking into is using an object whose fields are lastVar1, lastVar2, etc. However, I'm not sure if keeping an object in memory would be more efficient than using static variables.
Your question has a taste of being purely about style and opinions, though there are aspects that are not a matter of opinion: multithreading and testing.
Consider this:
bool foo(int x) {
static last_val = -1;
bool result = (x == last_val);
last_val = x;
return result;
}
You can call this function concurrently from multiple threads but it wont do the expected. Moreover you can only test the function by asserting that it does the right thing:
foo(1);
assert( foo(1) ); // silenty assumes that the last call did the right thing
To setup the preconditions for the test (first line) you already have to assume that foo(1) does the right thing, which somehow defeats the purpose of testing that call in the second line.
If the methods need the current object and the previous object, simply pass both:
bool processData(const Object& message,const Object& previous_message){
if (message.var1 > previous_message.var1){
// Do something
return true;
}
return false;
}
Of course this just shifts the issue of keeping track of the previous message to the caller, though thats straight-forward and requires not messing around with statics:
Object message, old_message;
while ( get_more( message )) {
processData(message, old_message);
old_message = message;
}
I have this method:
bool CDemoPickerDlg::IsStudentTalk(CString strAssignment)
{
bool bStudentTalk = false;
CString strTalkMain, strTalkClass;
if (theApp.UseTranslationINI())
{
strTalkMain = theApp.GetSMMethod(_T("IDS_STR_HISTORY_TALK_MAIN"));
strTalkClass = theApp.GetSMMethod(_T("IDS_STR_HISTORY_TALK_AUX"));
}
else
{
strTalkMain.LoadString(IDS_STR_HISTORY_TALK_MAIN);
strTalkClass.LoadString(IDS_STR_HISTORY_TALK_AUX);
}
int iTalkMainLen = strTalkMain.GetLength();
int iTalkClassLen = strTalkClass.GetLength();
if (strAssignment.Left(iTalkMainLen) == strTalkMain ||
strAssignment.Left(iTalkClassLen) == strTalkClass)
{
bStudentTalk = true;
}
return bStudentTalk;
}
It is called multiple times. Without added "member variables" to the class to cache values is there any other way to create the values for the two CString and int values just the once? As they will not change for the duration of the program.
The method above is static. I know about assigning a value to a static variable but I understand that can only be done once at the time of declaration. Have I miss-understood that?
You can use a static constant (or variable, but why make it variable if it isn't supposed to be changed?) at function scope:
static CString const someImmutableText = <some initializer>;
The placeholder <some initializer> above can be a literal, a function call or any other expression that you can initialize a CString from. The static makes sure the object is only created once and subsequently only initialized once, too.
#Ulrich's answer will of course work fine, but if <some initializer> is non-trivial there is a hidden downside - as of C++11, the compiler is required to generate a threadsafe initialiser.
This has minimal runtime overhead but it does generate quite a lot of code, see at Godbolt, and if you have a lot of these then this can add up.
If there are no multi-threading issues (which generally there aren't, especially in initialisation code), then there is a simple alternative which will eliminate this code. In fact, it's so simple that it's barely worth posting at all, but I'll do it here anyway for completeness. It's just this; please excuse the anglicisms:
static bool initialised;
static Foo *initialise_me;
static Bar *initialise_me_too;
...
if (!initialised)
{
initialise_me = new Foo (...);
initialise_me_too = new Bar (...);
...
initialised = true;
}
...
Note that the variables to be initialised are declared as raw pointers here and allocated with new. This is done for a reason - the one thing you most definitely don't want is to call constructors at the point where you declare these variables, else you'll be right back where you started. There are no object lifetime issues because the variables remain in existence for the entire duration of the program, so it's all good.
And, in fact, you don't actually need that bool at all - just test (say) initialise_me against nullptr.
For example, I have to assure that a certain function for a certain real-time system works for 20 ms or less. I can simply measure time at the beginning of a function and at the end of it, then assert the difference to be satisfactory. And I do this in C++.
But this look pretty much like contract, except time checking is a post-condition, and time measurement at the beginning is not a condition at all. It would be nice to put it into contract not only for the notation of it, but for building reasons as well.
So I wonder, can I use contract capabilities to check the time of function working?
Sort of, but not really well. The reason is variables declared in the in{} block are not visible in the out{} block. (There's been some discussing about changing this, so it can check pre vs post state by making a copy in the in block, but nothing has been implemented.)
So, this will not work:
void foo()
in { auto before = Clock.currTime(); }
out { assert(Clock.currTime - before < dur!"msecs"(20)); }
body { ... }
The variable from in won't carry over to out, giving you an undefined identifier error. But, I say "sort of" though because there is a potential workaround:
import std.datetime;
struct Foo {
SysTime test_before;
void test()
in {
test_before = Clock.currTime();
}
out {
assert(Clock.currTime - test_before < dur!"msecs"(20));
}
body {
}
}
Declaring the variable as a regular member of the struct. But this would mean a lot of otherwise useless variables for each function, wouldn't work with recursion, and just pollutes the member namespace.
Part of me is thinking you could do your own stack off to the side and have in{} push the time, then out{} pops it and checks.... but a quick test shows that it is liable to break once inheritance gets involved. If you repeat the in{} block each time, it might work. But this strikes me as awfully brittle. The rule with contract inheritance is ALL of the out{} blocks of the inheritance tree need to pass, but only any ONE of the in{} blocks needs to pass. So if you had a different in{} down the chain, it might forget to push the time, and then when out tries to pop it, your stack would underflow.
// just for experimenting.....
SysTime[] timeStack; // WARNING: use a real stack here in production, a plain array will waste a *lot* of time reallocating as you push and pop on to it
class Foo {
void test()
in {
timeStack ~= Clock.currTime();
}
out {
auto start = timeStack[$-1];
timeStack = timeStack[0 .. $-1];
assert(Clock.currTime - start < dur!"msecs"(20));
import std.stdio;
// making sure the stack length is still sane
writeln("stack length ", timeStack.length);
}
body { }
}
class Bar : Foo {
override void test()
in {
// had to repeat the in block on the child class for this to work at all
timeStack ~= Clock.currTime();
}
body {
import core.thread;
Thread.sleep(10.msecs); // bump that up to force a failure, ensuring the test is actually run
}
}
That seems to work, but I think it is more trouble than it's worth. I expect it would break somehow as the program got bigger, and if your test breaks your program, that kinda defeats the purpose.
I'd probably do it as a unittest{}, if only checking with explicit tests fulfills you requirements (however, note that contracts, like most asserts in D, are removed if you compile with the -release switch, so they won't actually be checked in release versions either. If you need it to reliably fail, throw an exception rather than assert, since that will always work, in debug and release modes.).
Or you could do it with an assert in the function or a helper struct or whatever, similar to C++. I'd use a scope guard:
void test() {
auto before = Clock.currTime();
scope(exit) assert(Clock.currTime - before < dur!"msecs"(20)); // or import std.exception; and use enforce instead of assert if you want it in release builds too
/* write the rest of your function */
}
Of course, here you'll have to copy it in the subclasses too, but it seems like you'd have to do that with the in{} blocks anyway, so meh, and at least the before variable is local.
Bottom line, I'd say you're probably best off doing it more or less the same way you have been in C++.
I have some small helper functions needed throughout the code.
To work, they need to be initialized with some data once.
Where should I store the init data?
I've come up with two methods:
I create static variables in the scope of the helper.cpp file which I set with a dedicated setter function and then use in my helper function.
static int _initData = 0;
void initHelpMe(int initData)
{
_initData = initData;
}
void helpMe()
{
doSomethingWith(_initData);
}
Or I use a static function variable inside the original helper function and a default parameter to it.
void helpMe(int initData = 0)
{
static int _initData = 0;
if (initData != 0)
_initData = initData;
doSomethingWith(_initData);
}
(Lets asume that 0 is outside of the valid data range of initData and that I've not shown additional code to ensure an error is raised when the function is called for the first time without initiating it first.)
What are the advantages / disadvantages of those two methods and is there an even better way of doing it?
I of course like the second method, because it keeps all the functionality in one place. But I already know it is not thread-safe (which is not an issue a.t.m.).
And, to make this more interesting, albeit being C++ this is not to be used in object-oriented but in procedural code. So please no answers proposing objects or classes. Just imagine it to be C with the syntax of C++.
I was going to suggest that you wrap your data into an object, until I realized that you are asking for a C solution with a C++ tag...
Both of your solutions have their benefits.
The second one is the one I'd prefer, assuming we just go by "what it looks like/maintainability". However, there is a drawback if helpMe is called MANY times with initData == 0, because of the extra if, which isn't present in the first case. This may or may not be an issue if doSomethingWith() is long enough a function and/or the compiler has the ability to inline helpMe (and initData is constant).
And of course, something in the code will have to call initHelpMe too, so it may turn out to be the same anyway.
In summary: Prefer the second one, based on isolation/encapsulation.
I clearly prefer the second! Global static data in different compilation units are initialized in unspecified order (In one unit in order, though). Local static data of a function is initialized at first call.
Example:
If you have two translation units A and B. The unit A calls during initialization the function helpMe of unit B. Assume the order of initialization is A, B.
The first solution will set the zero initialized _initData to some initData. After that the initialization of unit B resets _initData back to zero and may produce a memory leak or other harm.
There is a third solution:
void helpMe(int initData = 0)
{
static std::once_flag once;
static int _initData = 0;
std::call_once(once, [&] {
_initData = initData;
}
doSomethingWith(_initData);
}
I feel strongly both ways.
Prefer option 2 for the isolation, but option 1 lends itself to porting to a C++ class. I've coded both ways. It comes down to the SW architecture.
Let me offer another point.
Both options down side: You have not limited initialization to one occurrence. "need to be initialized with some data once". It appears OP's conditions insure a proper initialization of initHelpMe(123) or HelpMe(123) followed by helpMe(), but do not prevent/detect a secondary initialization.
Should a secondary need to be prevented/detected, some additional code could be used.
// Initialization
if (_initData != 0) {
; // Handle error
}
_initData = initData;
Another paradigm I've used follows. It may not be realizable in you code as it does not pass initData as a parameter but magically can get it.
void helpMe(void) {
static int Initialized = 0;
if (!Initialized) {
Initialized = 1;
_initData = initData();
}
doSomethingWith(_initData);
}
I have a setup that looks like this.
class Checker
{ // member data
Results m_results; // see below
public:
bool Check();
private:
bool Check1();
bool Check2();
// .. so on
};
Checker is a class that performs lengthy check computations for engineering analysis. Each type of check has a resultant double that the checker stores. (see below)
bool Checker::Check()
{ // initilisations etc.
Check1();
Check2();
// ... so on
}
A typical Check function would look like this:
bool Checker::Check1()
{ double result;
// lots of code
m_results.SetCheck1Result(result);
}
And the results class looks something like this:
class Results
{ double m_check1Result;
double m_check2Result;
// ...
public:
void SetCheck1Result(double d);
double GetOverallResult()
{ return max(m_check1Result, m_check2Result, ...); }
};
Note: all code is oversimplified.
The Checker and Result classes were initially written to perform all checks and return an overall double result. There is now a new requirement where I only need to know if any of the results exceeds 1. If it does, subsequent checks need not be carried out(it's an optimisation). To achieve this, I could either:
Modify every CheckN function to keep check for result and return. The parent Check function would keep checking m_results. OR
In the Results::SetCheckNResults(), throw an exception if the value exceeds 1 and catch it at the end of Checker::Check().
The first is tedious, error prone and sub-optimal because every CheckN function further branches out into sub-checks etc.
The second is non-intrusive and quick. One disadvantage is I can think of is that the Checker code may not necessarily be exception-safe(although there is no other exception being thrown anywhere else). Is there anything else that's obvious that I'm overlooking? What about the cost of throwing exceptions and stack unwinding?
Is there a better 3rd option?
I don't think this is a good idea. Exceptions should be limited to, well, exceptional situations. Yours is a question of normal control flow.
It seems you could very well move all the redundant code dealing with the result out of the checks and into the calling function. The resulting code would be cleaner and probably much easier to understand than non-exceptional exceptions.
Change your CheckX() functions to return the double they produce and leave dealing with the result to the caller. The caller can more easily do this in a way that doesn't involve redundancy.
If you want to be really fancy, put those functions into an array of function pointers and iterate over that. Then the code for dealing with the results would all be in a loop. Something like:
bool Checker::Check()
{
for( std::size_t id=0; idx<sizeof(check_tbl)/sizeof(check_tbl[0]); ++idx ) {
double result = check_tbl[idx]();
if( result > 1 )
return false; // or whichever way your logic is (an enum might be better)
}
return true;
}
Edit: I had overlooked that you need to call any of N SetCheckResultX() functions, too, which would be impossible to incorporate into my sample code. So either you can shoehorn this into an array, too, (change them to SetCheckResult(std::size_t idx, double result)) or you would have to have two function pointers in each table entry:
struct check_tbl_entry {
check_fnc_t checker;
set_result_fnc_t setter;
};
check_tbl_entry check_tbl[] = { { &Checker::Check1, &Checker::SetCheck1Result }
, { &Checker::Check2, &Checker::SetCheck2Result }
// ...
};
bool Checker::Check()
{
for( std::size_t id=0; idx<sizeof(check_tbl)/sizeof(check_tbl[0]); ++idx ) {
double result = check_tbl[idx].checker();
check_tbl[idx].setter(result);
if( result > 1 )
return false; // or whichever way your logic is (an enum might be better)
}
return true;
}
(And, no, I'm not going to attempt to write down the correct syntax for a member function pointer's type. I've always had to look this up and still never ot this right the first time... But I know it's doable.)
Exceptions are meant for cases that shouldn't happen during normal operation. They're hardly non-intrusive; their very nature involves unwinding the call stack, calling destructors all over the place, yanking the control to a whole other section of code, etc. That stuff can be expensive, depending on how much of it you end up doing.
Even if it were free, though, using exceptions as a normal flow control mechanism is a bad idea for one other, very big reason: exceptions aren't meant to be used that way, so people don't use them that way, so they'll be looking at your code and scratching their heads trying to figure out why you're throwing what looks to them like an error. Head-scratching usually means you're doing something more "clever" than you should be.