Full class template specialization with forward declarations - c++

It appears a forward declaration is causing an issue when specializing some template functions within a template class. I am specializing the class also as it's necessary in order to specialize the function, and this seems to be causing the issue.
Edit: Second question about pre-creating functions for process function:
processor.H
namespace OM{
template<typename MatchT> //fwd decl. ERROR 2. see below.
class Manager;
template<typename MatchT>
class Processor
{
public:
Processor(Manager<MatchT>& mgr_):_manager(mgr_) {}
template<int P>
void process();
void doProcess();
private:
Manager<MatchT>& _manager;
template<int P, int... Ps>
struct table : table<P-1,P-1, Ps... > {};
template<int... Ps>
struct table<0, Ps...>
{
static constexpr void(*tns[])() = {process<Ps>...};
};
static table<5> _table;
};
}
#include "processor.C"
processor.C
namespace OM{
#include "MyManager.H" (includes MyManager/MyConfig)
template<typename MatchT>
template<int P>
inline void Processor<MatchT>::process()
{
...
_manager.send(); //this works..
}
template <> template <>
inline void Processor<MyManager<MyConfig> >::process<1>()
{
_manager.send(); //ERROR 1 - see below.
}
//ERROR here:
template<typename MatchT>
void doProcess()
{
Processor<MatchT>::_table::tns[2](); ERROR 3 below.
}
}
compile errors:
1. error: invalid use of incomplete type 'class Manager <MyManager<MyConfig> >'
2. error: declaration of 'class Manager<MyManager<MyConfig> >'
class Manager;
3. error: no type name '_table' in "class Processor<MyManager<MyConfig> >'
I'm not calling this from a specialized function, so I'm not sure
why I'm getting this.
I can move things around a bit to ensure the _manager calls are not within the specialized functions, but I'd rather not if I don't have to.

I played around with this, I think now I get a similar result.
The problem is the template specialisation and forward declaration together. This should be eqvivalent:
template<typename T> struct A;
template<typename T> class B
{
template<int N>
T f();
};
template<typename T> class B<A<T>>
{
A<T> *a;
template<int N>
T f();
};
template<typename T> struct A{ T i=1; };//works
template<>
template<>
int B<A<int>>::f<1>()
{
return a->i + 1;
}
//template<typename T> struct A { T i = 1; };//error
int main()
{
B<A<int>> b;
}
The compilation for templates comes in two stages:
First, it checks syntax and (some) dependence. So, for example if a in B<A<T>> was not a pointer/reference, but the object itself, it could compile, if that B<A<T>> is constructed after A is defined. (worked for me)
So the second is when the compiler inserts the arguments, here, the compiler must know all objects to generate code.
When fully specialising, as above, the compiler is forced to know all types. It already knows, that f function depends on the implementation of A, so it cannot generate the code.
Therefore you have to define A or Manager before the function specialisation.

Related

Timing of C++template specialization and constexpr function execution [duplicate]

Note: this seems to be a repost of a problem: C++ - Overload templated class method with a partial specilization of that method
I have boiled down a problem I am having with C++ template specialization down to a simple case.
It consists of a simple 2-parameter template class Thing, where I would like to specialize Thing<A,B>::doSomething() for B=int.
#include <cstdio>
// A 3-parameter template class.
template <class A, class B>
class Thing
{
public:
Thing(A a, B b) : a_(a), b_(b) {}
B doSomething();
private:
A a_;
B b_;
};
// The generic case works as expected.
template <class A, class B>
B Thing<A,B>::doSomething()
{
return b_;
}
// This specialization does not work!
template <class A>
int Thing<A,int>::doSomething()
{
return b_+1;
}
int main() {
// Setup our thing.
Thing<double,int> thing(1.0,2);
// This doesn't compile - but works with the generic case.
printf("Expecting 3, and getting %i\n", thing.doSomething());
// Clean up.
return 0;
}
Unfortunately, g++ exits with the error:
partial_specialization.cpp:30: error: invalid use of incomplete type ‘class Thing<A, int>’
partial_specialization.cpp:8: error: declaration of ‘class Thing<A, int>’
The clang++ compiler is a bit more verbose, but has the same problem:
partial_specialization.cpp:30:19: error: nested name specifier 'Thing<A, int>::' for declaration does not
refer into a class, class template or class template partial specialization
int Thing<A,int>::doSomething()
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
partial_specialization.cpp:32:12: error: use of undeclared identifier 'b_'
return b_+1;
^
2 errors generated.
I have read and understood that partial template specializations on functions aren't allowed - but I thought I was partially specializing over classes of Thing in this case.
Any ideas?
What I did: A workaround, as determined from the link provided by the accepted answer:
template< class T >
inline T foo( T const & v ) { return v; }
template<>
inline int foo( int const & v ) { return v+1; }
// The generic case works as expected.
template <class A, class B>
B Thing<A,B>::doSomething()
{
return foo(b_);
}
Partial specialization of a function template, whether it is member function template or stand-alone function template, is not allowed by the Standard:
template<typename T, typename U> void f() {} //okay - primary template
template<typename T> void f<T,int>() {} //error - partial specialization
template<> void f<unsigned char,int>() {} //okay - full specialization
But you can partially specialize the class template itself. You can do something like this:
template <class A>
class Thing<A,int> //partial specialization of the class template
{
//..
int doSomething();
};
template <class A>
int Thing<A,int>::doSomething() { /* do whatever you want to do here */ }
Note that when you partially specialize a class template, then the template parameter-list of member function (in its definition outside the class), must match the template parameter list of the class template partial specialization. That means, for the above partial specialization of the class template, you cannot define this:
template <class A>
int Thing<A,double>::doSomething(); //error
Its not allowed, because the template parameter-list in function definition didn't match the template parameter-list of the class template partial specialization. §14.5.4.3/1 from the Standard (2003) says,
The template parameter list of a member of a class template partial specialization shall match the template parameter list of the class template partial specialization.[...]
For more on this, read my answer here:
C++ - Overload templated class method with a partial specilization of that method
So what is the solution? Would you partially specialize your class along with all the repetitive work?
A simple solution would be work delegation, instead of partially specializing the class template. Write a stand-alone function template and specialize this as:
template <class B>
B doTheActualSomething(B & b) { return b; }
template <>
int doTheActualSomething<int>(int & b) { return b + 1; }
And then call this function template from doSomething() member function as:
template <class A, class B>
B Thing<A,B>::doSomething() { return doTheActualSomething<B>(b_); }
Since in your particular case, doTheActualSomething needs to know the value of only one member, namely b_, the above solution is fine, as you can pass the value to the function as argument whose type is the template type argument B, and specialization for int is possible being it full-specialization.
But imagine if it needs to access multiple members, type of each depends on the template type argument-list, then defining a stand-alone function template wouldn't solve the problem, because now there will be more than one type argument to the function template, and you cannot partially specialize the function for just, say, one type (as its not allowed).
So in this case you can define a class template instead, which defines a static non-template member function doTheActualSomething. Here is how:
template<typename A, typename B>
struct Worker
{
B doTheActualSomething(Thing<A,B> *thing)
{
return thing->b_;
}
};
//partial specialization of the class template itself, for B = int
template<typename A>
struct Worker<A,int>
{
int doTheActualSomething(Thing<A,int> *thing)
{
return thing->b_ + 1;
}
};
Notice that you can use thing pointer to access any member of the class. Of course, if it needs to access private members, then you've to make struct Worker a friend of Thing class template, as:
//forward class template declaration
template<typename T, typename U> struct Worker
template <class A, class B>
class Thing
{
template<typename T, typename U> friend struct Worker; //make it friend
//...
};
Now delegate the work to the friend as:
template <class A, class B>
B Thing<A,B>::doSomething()
{
return Worker<A,B>::doTheActualSomething(this); //delegate work
}
Two points to be noted here:
In this solution, doTheActualSomething is not a member function template. Its not enclosing class which is template. Hence we can partially specialize the class template anytime, to get the desired effect of the partial member function template specialization.
Since we pass this pointer as argument to the function, we can access any member of the class Thing<A,B>, even private members, as Worker<T,U> is also a friend.
Complete online demo : http://www.ideone.com/uEQ4S
Now there is still a chance of improvement. Now all instantiations of Worker class template are friends of all instantiation of Thing class template. So we can restrict this many-to-many friendship as:
template <class A, class B>
class Thing
{
friend struct Worker<A,B>; //make it friend
//...
};
Now only one instantiation of Worker class template is a friend of one instantiation of Thing class template. That is one-to-one friendship. That is, Worker<A,B> is a friend of Thing<A,B>. Worker<A,B> is NOT a friend of Thing<A,C>.
This change requires us to write the code in somewhat different order. See the complete demo, with all the ordering of class and function definitions and all:
http://www.ideone.com/6a1Ih
This is a very often found problem, and there is a surprisingly simple solution. I will show it in an artificial example, because it's more clearer than to use your code, and you will have to understand it to adapt it to your code
template<typename A, typename B>
struct TwoTypes { };
template<typename A, typename B>
struct X {
/* forwards ... */
void f() { fImpl(TwoTypes<A, B>()); }
/* special overload for <A, int> */
template<typename A1>
void fImpl(TwoTypes<A1, int>) {
/* ... */
}
/* generic */
template<typename A1, typename B1>
void fImpl(TwoTypes<A1, B1>) {
/* ... */
}
};
Explicitly specializing functions is never (almost never?) the right way. In my work as a programmer, I've never explicitly specialized a function template. Overloading and partial ordering is superior.

Templated Member Function of Templated Class

I have a templated C++ class which has a templated member function as well. The template parameters of this member function are dependent on the class's template parameters in a specific way (please see the code below).
I am instantiating (not specializing) this class for two different values of its template parameter. Everything compiles till this point. However, if I invoke the templated member function, the call for only the first instantiated object compiles and not the second one.
It appears as if the compiler is not instantiating the templated member function for the second instantiation of the template class. I am compiling the code below using "g++ filename.cpp" and am getting the following error:
filename.cpp:63: error: no matching function for call to 'Manager<(Base)1u>::init(Combination<(Base)1u, (Dependent2)0u>*)’
This is the line calling b.init(&combination_2)
g++ --version => g++ (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.7-1ubuntu2) 4.4.7
uname -a => Linux 3.2.0-25-generic-pae #40-Ubuntu SMP i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
enum Base {
AA,
BB,
CC
};
enum Dependent1 {
PP,
QQ,
RR
};
enum Dependent2 {
XX,
YY,
ZZ
};
template<Base B>
struct DependentProperty {
};
template<>
struct DependentProperty<AA> {
typedef Dependent1 Dependent;
};
template<>
struct DependentProperty<BB> {
typedef Dependent2 Dependent;
};
template <Base B, typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent D>
class Combination {
public:
void reset() {}
int o;
};
template <Base B>
class Manager {
public:
template <typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent D,
template<Base,
typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent> class T>
void init(T<B, D>* t);
};
template <Base B>
template <typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent D,
template<Base,
typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent> class T>
void Manager<B>::init(T<B, D>* t) {
t->reset();
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
Manager<AA> a;
Manager<BB> b;
Combination<AA, PP> combination_1;
Combination<BB, XX> combination_2;
a.init(&combination_1);
b.init(&combination_2);
return 0;
}
It is not feasible to modify the classes corresponding to Base, Dependent or Combination from my example code in our actual project. What I am really wondering is whether my syntax for defining Manager::init() is wrong, or whether there is some known property/feature/constraint of C++ or g++ that wouldn't allow this code?
The code below compiles for me, I have simplified your code a little, though it still does the same thing.
template <Base B>
class Manager {
public:
typedef typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent D; // if ever you need it
template <typename TCombinaison>
void init(TCombinaison* t)
{
t->reset();
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
typedef Combination<AA, PP> CombinaisonA;
typedef Combination<BB, XX> CombinaisonB;
typedef DependentProperty<AA> DependencyPropertyA;
typedef DependentProperty<BB> DependencyPropertyB;
CombinaisonA combination_1;
CombinaisonB combination_2;
Manager<AA> a;
Manager<BB> b;
a.init(&combination_1);
b.init<&combination_2);
return 0;
}
EDIT: A 2nd solution so as to forbid the mixed use of combination in managers, as the OP has noticed in the comments below. Now I'm using std::is_same to check the "concept" contract.
template <Base B, typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent D>
class Combination {
public:
typedef typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent DependencyType;
void reset() {}
int o;
};
template <Base B>
class Manager {
public:
typedef typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent DependencyType;
template <typename TCombinaison>
void init(TCombinaison* t)
{
static_assert(std::is_same<TCombinaison::DependencyType, Manager::DependencyType>);
t->reset();
}
};
If you combine inheritance and go away from constant template parameters, extend the Combination to provide info on its template arguments, you can get the code to compile taking into account that you don't want this to compile:
b.init(&combination_1);
You are trying very hard to specify and fix the type of the Combination for the init member template within your Manager indirectly, even though the init template will deduce it since it is the only parameter of the function, and the type si defined within main anyway.
Would you consider templating the init directly with the Combination?
This way, everything apart from the init() declaration remains the same, and your code compiles as you wanted to initially:
class Base
{
};
class AA
:
public Base
{
};
class BB
:
public Base
{
};
class Dependent1
{
};
class PP
:
public Dependent1
{};
class Dependent2
{};
class XX
:
public Dependent2
{};
template<class Base>
struct DependentProperty {
};
template<>
struct DependentProperty<AA> {
typedef Dependent1 Dependent;
};
template<>
struct DependentProperty<BB> {
typedef Dependent2 Dependent;
};
template <class Base>
class Combination {
public:
typedef Base CombinationBase;
typedef typename DependentProperty<Base>::Dependent CombinationDependent;
void reset()
{
}
int o;
};
template <class Base>
class Manager
{
public:
// Any type C
template<class C>
void init (C* t)
{
// Any type C conforming to the implicit interface holding reset()
t->reset();
// Forcing specific combination
Base b = typename C::CombinationBase();
// Forcing it again
typename DependentProperty<Base>::Dependent d = typename C::CombinationDependent();
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
Combination<AA> combination_1;
Manager<AA> a;
a.init(&combination_1);
Manager<BB> b;
Combination<BB> combination_2;
b.init(&combination_2);
b.init(&combination_1);
return 0;
}
In this case, you can extend the Combination template to provide access to its template parameters to the client code. Of course the template C in this case becomes a refinement of the Combination concept as soon as you rely on its implementation within the init member function (accessing the stored template argument values, etc).
Your code is correct, except for the function calling part.
a.init<PP, Combination>( &combination_1 );
b.init<XX, Combination> ( &combination_2 );
This compiles and runs peacefully.
The only thing I see is
template <typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent D,
template<Base, <-- wrong
typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent <-- wrong
> class T>
void init(T<B, D>* t);
Your class Combination waits values as a template parameter, but you want to give him types
I spent some time to fix it - like that
template <typename DependentProperty<B>::Dependent D,
template<Base BB,
typename DependentProperty<BB>::Dependent DD
> class T>
void init(T<B, D>* t);
and many other variants, but had no success.
Excuse me for arrange it as an answer, but I couldn't type so many code in a comment

g++ compiler error with templated base class member

I'm trying to compile some Microsoft Visual C++ code using g++. Now I've come across a compiler error which I really can't understand. The (simplified) code looks like this:
template<int X> struct A {
template<class Ret> static Ret call() {
return 0;
}
};
template<int X> struct B : A<X> {
int f() {
return A<X>::call<int>();
}
};
When I try to compile this with g++ (version 4.4.5), I get the following error:
main.cpp: In member function int B<X>::f():
main.cpp:16: error: expected primary-expression before int
main.cpp:16: error: expected ; before int
main.cpp:16: error: expected unqualified-id before > token
If I remove the template type (Ret) from method A::call, the code compiles just fine. Can anybody see whats wrong here?
Thanks!
You need the template keyword:
return A<X>::template call<int>();
call is a dependent name, meaning that its signification depends on a template parameter, which is not known when the compiler process f(). You need to indicate that call is a function template by prefixing it with the template keyword.
The same thing happens when you try to access a nested type: you need to add the typename keyword to indicate that the name denotes a type:
template <typename T>
struct A { typedef int type; };
template <typename T>
void f()
{
typename A<T>::type i = 0; // notice "typename" here
}
And sometimes you even need to mix both:
template <typename T>
struct A
{
template <typename U>
struct inner { };
};
template <typename T>
void f()
{
typename A<T>::template inner<int> var;
}
The use of these two keywords is thoroughly explained in the answers to this question: Where and why do I have to put the “template” and “typename” keywords? (thanks to #Björn Pollex for finding the link).
A is a template, and without knowing X the compiler can't determine the contents of A<X>. Especially it doesn't know that call will end up being a template.
To tell that to the compiler you have to use the template keyword:
template<int X> struct B : A<X> {
int f() {
return A<X>::template call<int>();
}
};
You have to specify that the function you're calling is a template, as it's part of a template class. The compiler is not aware that any given A<X> has a template function named call, and therefore you need to help it.
template<int X> struct B : A<X> {
int f() {
return A<X>::template call<int>();
}
};

Partial Specialization of Operator()

One of my classes declares a templated function:
template<class A, class B>
A do_something(const std::vector<B> &data)
which I'd like to partially specialize on typename A. B is a family of types that implement a pretty minimal interface, and we use a lot of them, so I'd like my specialization to be generic on B. I suspect this is doubly vexing as typename A is used only as the return type.
From the internet, I've gleaned that I can't partially specialize a function, so I've created a class as follows:
template<class A, class B>
class do_something_implementation {
public:
do_something_implementation(const std::vector<B> &data_) {
data = data_;
}
int do_something_implementation<int, B>::operator()() {
/* Complicated algorithm goes here... */
}
double do_something_implementation<double, B>::operator()() {
/* Different complicated algorithm goes here... */
}
private:
std::vector<B> data;
}
When I try to compile that (using Visual Studio 2008), the compiler crashes (!) and I get the following error:
fatal error C1001: An internal error has occurred in the compiler.
I assume this is my problem and not the compiler's. Is there a better way to express the partial specialization I'm aiming for?
Usually, it goes like this:
template <typename A, typename B>
struct DoSomethingHelper
{
static A doIt(const std::vector<B> &data);
};
template <typename B>
struct DoSomethingHelper<double, B>
{
static double doIt(const std::vector<B> &data) { ... }
};
template <typename B>
struct DoSomethingHelper<int, B>
{
static int doIt(const std::vector<B> &data) { ... }
};
template<class A, class B>
A do_something(const std::vector<B> &data)
{ return DoSomethingHelper<A, B>::doIt(data); }
Now that you've seen the classic forward to static method, there is actually another way when the type for which to specialize is "complete".
You may not be able to partially specialize a function, but you can perfectly overload it.
template <typename A, typename B>
A do(std::vector<B> const& data) { return this->doImpl(data, (A*)0); }
template <typename A, typename B>
A doImpl(std::vector<B> const& B, A*) { // generic implementation }
template <typename B>
int doImpl(std::vector<B> const& B, int*) { // int implementation }
template <typename B>
double doImpl(std::vector<B> const& B, double*) { // double implementation }
The trick is to pass an "unused" argument to doImpl for the sole purpose of actually selecting the right implementation (thanks to overload resolution).
Here I simply chose to pass (A*)0, because this does not involve A's constructor (in case it's non trivial).
This dispatch idiom is what is used in the STL to implement some algorithm with better efficiency for some iterator categories (for example, std::distance is O(1) for random iterators).
I find it much more lightweight that using a helper class with static methods and partial specializations... but maybe that's just me :)
People typically just forward to a static implementation.
template<class A, class B> class X;
template<class A, class B> friend class X;
template<class A, class B> class X {
public:
static A do_something(class_type* not_this, const std::vector<B>& data) {
//...
}
};
// partially specialize
template<class A, class B>
A do_something(const std::vector<B> &data) {
return X<A, B>::do_something(this, data);
};
Not a solution to your problem (there are a couple already there), but some of the things that are wrong in your code:
You are missing a struct or class keyword in the template class declaration:
template <typename A, typename B> struct do_something_implementation {
// ^^^^^^
Inside the class definition, member functions must not use a qualified name, regardless of whether the class is a template or not:
class A {
void A::foo() {} // Error, should be: void foo() {}
};
Member template specializations cannot appear inside the class definition, but at the namespace level:
class B {
template <typename T> void foo( T );
};
template <> void B::foo<int>( int ) {}
template <> void B::foo<double>( double ) {}
Plus on your case, the member function is not a template, but rather a non-templated member function (the template is the containing class, not the function itself). What your code is effectively trying to do is defining other class' member functions inside the general template, kind of trying to do.
Overall there was enough errors to make parsing the code almost impossible for the compiler to identify what you were trying to do and provide a good error message, but still, it should have provided any error message pointing to the first line that you copied instead of chocking to death.

C++ template gotchas

just now I had to dig through the website to find out why template class template member function was giving syntax errors:
template<class C> class F00 {
template<typename T> bar();
};
...
Foo<C> f;
f.bar<T>(); // syntax error here
I now realize that template brackets are treated as relational operators. To do what was intended the following bizarre syntax is needed, cf Templates: template function not playing well with class's template member function:
f.template bar<T>();
what other bizarre aspects and gotcha of C++/C++ templates you have encountered that were not something that you would consider to be common knowledge?
I got tripped up the first time I inherited a templated class from another templated class:
template<typename T>
class Base {
int a;
};
template<typename T>
class Derived : public Base<T> {
void func() {
a++; // error! 'a' has not been declared
}
};
The problem is that the compiler doesn't know if Base<T> is going to be the default template or a specialized one. A specialized version may not have int a as a member, so the compiler doesn't assume that it's available. But you can tell the compiler that it's going to be there with the using directive:
template<typename T>
class Derived : public Base<T> {
using Base<T>::a;
void func() {
a++; // OK!
}
};
Alternatively, you can make it explicit that you are using a member of T:
void func {
T::a++; // OK!
}
This one got me upset back then:
#include <vector>
using std::vector;
struct foo {
template<typename U>
void vector();
};
int main() {
foo f;
f.vector<int>(); // ambiguous!
}
The last line in main is ambiguous, because the compiler not only looks up vector within foo, but also as an unqualified name starting from within main. So it finds both std::vector and foo::vector. To fix this, you have to write
f.foo::vector<int>();
GCC does not care about that, and accepts the above code by doing the intuitive thing (calling the member), other compilers do better and warn like comeau:
"ComeauTest.c", line 13: warning: ambiguous class member reference -- function
template "foo::vector" (declared at line 8) used in preference to
class template "std::vector" (declared at line 163 of
"stl_vector.h")
f.vector<int>(); // ambiguous!
The star of questions about templates here on SO: the missing typename!
template <typename T>
class vector
{
public:
typedef T * iterator;
...
};
template <typename T>
void func()
{
vector<T>::iterator it; // this is not correct!
typename vector<T>::iterator it2; // this is correct.
}
The problem here is that vector<T>::iterator is a dependent name: it depends on a template parameter. As a consequence, the compiler does not know that iterator designates a type; we need to tell him with the typename keyword.
The same goes for template inner classes or template member/static functions: they must be disambiguated using the template keyword, as noted in the OP.
template <typename T>
void func()
{
T::staticTemplateFunc<int>(); // ambiguous
T::template staticTemplateFunc<int>(); // ok
T t;
t.memberTemplateFunc<int>(); // ambiguous
t.template memberTemplateFunc<int>(); // ok
}
Out of scope class member function definition:
template <typename T>
class List { // a namespace scope class template
public:
template <typename T2> // a member function template
List (List<T2> const&); // (constructor)
…
};
template <typename T>
template <typename T2>
List<T>::List (List<T2> const& b) // an out-of-class member function
{ // template definition
…
}