Recently I tried to reinvent scope guard via std::unique_ptr (NOTE: Deleter has the member typedef pointer — is a specially handled case of std::unique_ptr):
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cassert>
namespace
{
template< typename lambda >
auto
make_scope_guard(lambda && _lambda)
{
struct lambda_caller
{
using pointer = std::decay_t< lambda >;
void
operator () (lambda & l) const noexcept
{
std::forward< lambda >(l)();
}
};
return std::unique_ptr< std::decay_t< lambda >, lambda_caller >(std::forward< lambda >(_lambda));
}
}
int
main()
{
std::cout << 1 << std::endl;
{
std::cout << 2 << std::endl;
[[gnu::unused]] auto && guard_ = make_scope_guard([&] { std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << std::endl; });
std::cout << 3 << std::endl;
}
std::cout << 5 << std::endl;
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Such an approach works fine for simple pointer to free function void f() { std::cout << 4 << std::endl; } passed to make_scope_guard, but not for any lambda passed to make_scope_guard.
This is due to an abundance of ... = pointer() into the std::unique_ptr definition (function default parameter, defaulting data memebers etc), but I can't find the DefaultConstructible requirement for pointer into this article.
Is it mandatory, that the pointer should match the std::is_default_constructible requirement?
It tested against libc++ and against libstdc++ using not too old clang++ -std=gnu++1z.
Seems, there should be language extension for lambdas: if auto l = [/* possible capture list */] (Args...) { /* code */; }; then using L = decltype(l); is equivalent to struct L { constexpr void operator () (Args...) const noexcept { ; } }; for some Args..., isn't it?
ADDITIONAL:
Providing the instance D{} of following DefaultConstructible class to make_scope_guard(D{}) requires commented out code to be uncommented in the context if (p) { ..., where p is of type D:
struct D { void operator () () const noexcept { std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << std::endl; } /* constexpr operator bool () const { return true; } */ };
A unique_ptr is still a pointer. You cannot shoehorn a lambda into it. From [unique.ptr]:
A unique pointer is an object that owns another object and manages that other object through a pointer.
More precisely, a unique pointer is an object u that stores a pointer to a second object p and will dispose of
p when u is itself destroyed
[...]
Additionally, u can, upon request, transfer ownership to another unique pointer u2. Upon completion of
such a transfer, the following post-conditions hold: [...] u.p is equal to nullptr
A lambda is not a pointer. A lambda cannot equal nullptr.
That said, you're already making your own local struct, why not just use that to do the RAII scope guarding itself instead of deferring to unique_ptr? That seems like a hack at best, and takes more code to boot. You could instead just do:
template< typename lambda >
auto
make_scope_guard(lambda && _lambda)
{
struct lambda_caller
{
lambda _lambda;
~lambda_caller()
{
_lambda();
}
};
return lambda_caller{std::forward<lambda>(_lambda)};
}
If you need to support release, you can wrap _lambda inside of boost::optional so that lambda_caller becomes:
struct lambda_caller
{
boost::optional<lambda> _lambda;
~lambda_caller()
{
if (_lambda) {
(*_lambda)();
_lambda = boost::none;
}
}
void release() {
_lambda = boost::none;
}
};
Related
I have a variadic variant_callable class object that I want to use for a runtime polymorphism. Inside it uses a visitor pattern with std::variant.
However, I came by a rather strange behavior, that is object's destructor is called twice!.
#include <utility>
#include <variant>
#include <tuple>
namespace detail
{
template<typename... Impl>
class variadic_callable
{
public:
template<typename T>
constexpr explicit variadic_callable(T &&t) //
: varImpl_(std::forward<T>(t))
{}
variadic_callable(const variadic_callable &) = delete;
variadic_callable(variadic_callable &&) = delete;
template<typename... Args>
constexpr decltype(auto) operator()(Args &&...args) const
{
return std::visit(
[argsTuple = std::forward_as_tuple(args...)](const auto &visitor) {
return std::apply(
[&visitor](auto &&...args) {
return visitor(std::forward<decltype(args)>(args)...);
},
argsTuple);
},
varImpl_);
}
private:
std::variant<Impl...> varImpl_;
};
} // namespace detail
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
int main(int, char **)
{
struct callable
{
std::string str = "Long enough string to be allocated. Oceanic";
callable()
{
std::cout << "callable()" << std::endl;
}
void operator()(int i) const
{
std::cout << str << " " << i << '\n';
}
~callable()
{
std::cout << "~callable()" << std::endl;
}
};
{
std::cout << "expcected:\n";
const auto &c = callable();
c(815);
std::cout << "finished\n";
}
std::cout << '\n';
{
std::cout << "actual\n";
const auto &w = detail::variadic_callable<callable>{callable()};
w(815);
std::cout << "finished\n";
}
}
The output:
Program returned: 0
expcected:
callable()
Long enough string to be allocated. Oceanic 815
finished
~callable()
actual
callable()
~callable()
Long enough string to be allocated. Oceanic 815
finished
~callable()
https://godbolt.org/z/d849EaqbE
I guess an UB is in-place, but I can't spot it.
What I find the most peculiar is the fact that in the "actual" case std::string resources are not destroyed after the first destructor invocation!
variadic_callable's constructor is being passed an object of type callable. This is a temporary object that cannot be the same object as the one stored in the std::variant (no matter how it is passed).
The callable inside the std::variant must therefore be move-constructed from the passed temporary object. Both of these objects need to be eventually destroyed, requiring two calls to callable's destructor.
To prevent this you need to pass the arguments from which callable is supposed to be constructed to variadic_callable's constructor instead (here an empty list) and then pass these on to std::variants in-place constructor, i.e.
template<typename T, typename... Args>
constexpr explicit variadic_callable(std::in_place_type_t<T> t, Args&&... args) //
: varImpl_(t, std::forward<Args>(args)...)
{}
called as
detail::variadic_callable<callable>{std::in_place_type<callable>};
Here I copied std::variant's constructor design for the in-place overload.
When can auto be used as the type specifier of a variable initialized with a lambda function? I'm try to use auto in the following program:
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
class A
{
const std::function <void ()>* m_Lambda = nullptr;
public:
A(const std::function <void ()>& lambda): m_Lambda (&lambda) {}
void ExecuteLambda()
{
(*m_Lambda)();
}
};
void main()
{
int i1 = 1;
int i2 = 2;
const auto lambda = [&]()
{
std::cout << "i1 == " << i1 << std::endl;
std::cout << "i2 == " << i2 << std::endl;
};
A a(lambda);
a.ExecuteLambda();
}
I'm using Visual Studio Community 2019 and when I start executing a.ExecuteLambda(), the program stops with the following exception:
Unhandled exception at 0x76D9B5B2 in lambda.exe:
Microsoft C ++ exception: std :: bad_function_call at memory location 0x00B5F434.
If I change the line const auto lambda = [&]() to const std::function <void ()> lambda = [&](), it works perfectly. Why is it not allowed to use auto? Can something be changed to allow it to be used?
A lambda expression does not result in a std::function. Instead, it creates an unnamed unique class type and that has an overload for operator(). When you pass your lambda to A's constructor, it creates a temporary std::function object, and you store a pointer to that temporary object. When A's constructor ends, that temporary object is destroyed, leaving you with a dangling pointer.
To fix this, just get rid of using pointers. That would look like
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
class A
{
std::function <void ()> m_Lambda;
public:
A(const std::function <void ()> lambda): m_Lambda (lambda) {}
void ExecuteLambda()
{
m_Lambda();
}
};
void main()
{
int i1 = 1;
int i2 = 2;
const auto lambda = [&]()
{
std::cout << "i1 == " << i1 << std::endl;
std::cout << "i2 == " << i2 << std::endl;
};
A a(lambda);
a.ExecuteLambda();
}
You are storing a dangling std::function pointer in your A object.
A lambda expression is not a std::function object, it is a compiler-defined type that is assignable to a std::function object.
When you declare lambda using auto, it gets a unique type. To bind this lambda to the A constructor's parameter, a temporary std::function object is created, which you are storing a pointer to. But then, that temporary gets destroyed when the constructor exits, which is why you get the exception when you try to execute the std::function.
When you change the declaration of lambda to std::function instead, the A constructor's parameter is able to bind to that object as-is, and no temporary is created.
You should be passing and storing std::function objects by value instead of by pointer, eg:
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
class A
{
std::function<void()> m_Lambda;
public:
A(std::function<void()> lambda): m_Lambda(lambda) {}
void ExecuteLambda()
{
m_Lambda();
}
};
int main()
{
int i1 = 1;
int i2 = 2;
const auto lambda = [&]()
{
std::cout << "i1 == " << i1 << std::endl;
std::cout << "i2 == " << i2 << std::endl;
};
A a(lambda);
a.ExecuteLambda();
return 0;
}
Online Demo
Take this contrived code where we need to create a lambda in a constructor that captures this in a movable type:
#include <functional>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std::string_literals;
namespace
{
class foo
{
public:
template <typename T>
explicit foo(std::string key, T val) :
key_{std::move(key)}
{
f_ = [this, v = std::move(val)]() {
std::cout << key_ << ": " << v << std::endl;
};
}
void print()
{
f_();
}
private:
std::function<void ()> f_;
std::string key_;
};
}
int main()
{
auto f1 = foo("hello", "goodbye"s);
auto f2 = std::move(f1);
f2.print();
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
In this example we're using the lambda for type erasure, but it really doesn't matter - all that's important is that we capture this in the lambda in the constructor.
Running this will yield:
: goodbye
This (I think) is because the key_ member being printed is the empty shell of the moved-from f1::key_ i.e. the captured this pointer is still pointing to f1 despite now being inside f2.
I can think of several (clunky) ways around this that are circumstance-specific, but is there standard/common/better/etc. way of effectively referring to the owning instance from inside a lambda?
A simple solution may be to avoid capturing this and instead providing it to your function object as an argument. This way your function object can be copied and moved around freely without having to account for which instance owns which function object. The current owner can pass itself to the function when the time comes to call it.
For example, here is what your original example might look like :
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
#include <string>
class foo
{
public:
template <typename T>
explicit foo(std::string key, T val) :
key_{ std::move(key) }
{
f_ = [v = std::move(val)](foo * const this_ptr) {
std::cout << this_ptr->key_ << ": " << v << std::endl;
};
}
void print()
{
f_(this);
}
private:
std::function<void(foo *)> f_;
std::string key_;
};
I'm working on a mechanism for creating "safe" callbacks, that won't cause undefined behavior when called after their parent object has been destroyed. The class should be generic enough to be able to wrap any callback, with void(...) callbacks simply being executed or not, depending on the status of the object that they are bound to, and callbacks that return a value returning a boost::optional with the returned value, if executed, or boost::none if not executed.The implementation is almost complete, but there are 2 things that make me worried that I don't fully understand my code...
If line 19 is uncommented and 18 commented out, the template won't compile - is this merely a syntactic problem that can be solved, or am I trying to use the result_of mechanism incorrectly (does the std::forward there change the semantics or is it superfluous?)
If line 88 is uncommented and 89 commented out, the compilation results in failure due to ambiguousness of the function call to fun, which I don't quite understand - it seems to me that fun(int&&) is an exact match, so why does the compiler complain of ambiguousness with fun(int) version?
If there are other subtle (or gross) errors, please comment as well.
Thanks.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
#include <memory>
#include <boost/optional.hpp>
template<class Func>
class SafeCallback
{
public:
SafeCallback(std::shared_ptr<bool> guard, const Func& callback)
: guard_(guard)
, callback_(callback)
{}
template<class... Args>
// auto operator()(Args&&... args) -> typename std::enable_if<std::is_void<typename std::result_of<Func(std::forward<Args>(args)...)>::type>::value, // won't compile with: 19:91: error: invalid use of template-name 'std::result_of' without an argument list
auto operator()(Args&&... args) -> typename std::enable_if<std::is_void<typename std::result_of<Func(Args...)>::type>::value,
void>::type
{
std::cout << "trying void callback" << std::endl;
if(guard_.lock())
{
std::cout << "callback is still alive :)" << std::endl;
callback_(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
return;
}
std::cout << "uh-oh, callback is dead!" << std::endl;
}
template<class... Args>
auto operator()(Args&&... args) -> typename std::enable_if<!std::is_void<typename std::result_of<Func(Args...)>::type>::value,
boost::optional<typename std::result_of<Func(Args...)>::type>>::type
{
std::cout << "trying non-void callback" << std::endl;
if(guard_.lock())
{
std::cout << "callback is still alive :)" << std::endl;
return callback_(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
std::cout << "uh-oh, callback is dead!" << std::endl;
return boost::none;
}
bool isAlive()
{
return guard_.lock();
}
private:
std::weak_ptr<bool> guard_;
Func callback_;
};
class SafeCallbackProvider
{
public:
SafeCallbackProvider()
: guard_(new bool(true))
{}
virtual ~SafeCallbackProvider() = default;
template<class Func>
SafeCallback<Func> makeSafeCallback(const Func& callback)
{
return SafeCallback<Func>(guard_, callback);
}
private:
std::shared_ptr<bool> guard_;
};
struct A : SafeCallbackProvider
{
void fun()
{
std::cout << "---this is fun---" << std::endl;
}
int fun(int&& i)
{
std::cout << "&& this is && " << i << " && fun &&" << std::endl;
return i;
}
// int fun(int i) // fails to compile with: 123:48: error: call of overloaded 'fun(int)' is ambiguous
int fun(int& i)
{
std::cout << "---this is ---" << i << "--- fun---" << std::endl;
return i;
}
};
int main()
{
A* a= new A;
auto cb = a->makeSafeCallback(
[&]()
{
a->fun();
});
cb();
delete a;
cb();
std::cout << "\n----------\n\n";
A* a2= new A;
auto cb2 = a2->makeSafeCallback(
[&](int i)
{
return a2->fun(i);
});
cb2(5);
delete a2;
cb2(5);
std::cout << "\n----------\n\n";
A* a3= new A;
auto cb3 = a3->makeSafeCallback(
[&](int&& i)
{
return a3->fun(std::forward<int>(i));
});
cb3(5);
delete a3;
cb3(5);
return 0;
}
Note: this only answers the first question, because I apparently have the attention span of a fly. More coming soon.
std::result_of essentially performs some magic based on a function type that looks like a function call. In the line that works:
typename std::result_of<Func(Args...)>::type
This is the intended use, simulating the call of an instance of Func with values of types Args.... On the other hand:
typename std::result_of<Func(std::forward<Args>(args)...)>::type
This expands Args and args into a group of values, which then form a chain of ,-operators inside a functoin-style cast to Func. The whole thing is an expression instead of the type std::result_of expects.
It looks like you're halfway to using decltype instead, which would look like:
decltype(std::declval<Func&>()(std::forward<Args>(args)...))
... or, if you can be bothered to move it underneath callback_'s declaration:
decltype(callback_(std::forward<Args>(args)...))
Rules of Overloading are that .
Signature of function should be different.
In both the case compiler is finding same signature, try to change the signature and see the result.
I'm trying to program a simple but flexible event system (mostly just as an exercise, I know there are existing libraries that have really good event handlers), and I've run into a little stumbling block.
How can you check if an std::function that's a delegate (probably through a lambda, possibly though std::bind) is a valid function/if the object for the member function still exists before calling it? I've tried simply using std::function's bool operator, but haven't had any success.
Ideally I'd like to A. do the checking somewhere other than inside the delegate function, and B. still have the code be valid when the std::function that's being checked isn't a delegate.
Any ideas?
Edit: Here's the source for the test that I ran
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <functional>
class Obj {
public:
std::string foo;
Obj(std::string foo) : foo(foo) {}
std::function<void()> getDelegate() {
auto callback = [this]() {this->delegatedFn();};
return callback;
}
void delegatedFn() {
std::cout << foo << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
Obj* obj = new Obj("bar");
std::function<void()> callback = obj->getDelegate();
callback();
delete obj;
//perform some type of check here whether function is valid, without needing to know whether the function is a delegate or not
if(callback) {
std::cout << "Callback is valid" << std::endl; //callback is still considered valid after obj is deleted
callback(); //no exception thrown, prints a random series of characters
}
else {
std::cout << "Callback is invalid" << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
You can use smart pointers (std::shared_ptr/std::weak_ptr) instead of naked ones:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <functional>
#include <memory>
class Obj {
public:
std::string foo;
Obj(std::string foo) : foo(foo) {}
void delegatedFn() {
std::cout << foo << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
auto obj = std::make_shared<Obj>("bar");
std::weak_ptr<Obj> ptr = obj;
std::function<void()> callback = [ptr](){
auto sh = ptr.lock();
if(sh) { std::cout << "valid" << std::endl; sh->delegatedFn(); }
else { std::cout << "invalid" << std::endl; }
};
callback();
obj = nullptr;
callback();
return 0;
}
In this case you are not directly checking the validity of a std::function (that is valid when you assign it something, even if that something captures a dangling pointer).
Instead, you check that the referred object is still alive from within the function itself.
The broadcaster/listener pattern I use looks like this:
template<class...Args>
struct broadcaster {
std::vector< std::weak_ptr< std::function<void(Args...)> > > callbacks;
void operator()(Args...args) const {
std::remove_erase_if( begin(callbacks), end(callbacks), [](auto&& ptr){return !ptr;} );
auto tmp = callbacks;
for (auto pf : tmp) {
if (pf && *pf) (*pf)(args...);
}
}
std::shared_ptr<void> listen( std::shared_ptr<std::function<void(Args...)>> f ) {
callbacks.push_back(f);
return f;
}
std::shared_ptr<void> listen( std::function<void(Args...)> f ) {
auto ptr = std::make_shared<std::function<void(Args...)>>(std::move(f));
return listen(ptr);
}
};
Listeners to a message .listen their callback with broadcaster. They get back a shared_ptr<void> token.
So long as that token exists, the broadcaster will send messages at the function object passed in.
Obj would either store a std::vector<std::shared_ptr<void>> tokens or a single std::shared_ptr<void>. When it was destroyed, its listeners would automatically deregister.
Alternatively, Obj could inherit from shared_from_this. Then it implements
std::function<void()> delegate;
std::shared_ptr<std::function<void()>> getDelegatedFn() {
if (!delegate) delegate = [this]{ this->delegateFn(); }
return {
&delegate,
shared_from_this()
};
}
which shares the lifetime of the Obj instance itself (uses the aliasing constructor of shared_ptr). Pass this to listen and done.