I have a C++ function that takes as arguments something like:
void myFunction(shared_ptr<const MyObject> ptr)) {
...
}
and in my main code I do something like this, and it compiles:
shared_ptr<MyObject> test(new MyObject());
myFunction(test);
Does this mean that inside MyFunction, if I dereference ptr, then the object is constant and cannot be modified?
What are the conversions going on to allow this to compile?
It uses the following constructor of std::shared_ptr:
template<class Y> shared_ptr(const shared_ptr<Y>& r) noexcept;
Which is defined to "not participate in the overload resolution unless Y* is implicitly
convertible to T*". Since, in your example, T* is implicitly convertible to const T*, everything is fine. This is nice, of course, because it means that shared_ptrs behave just like raw pointers.
The code compiles because there is a constructor of shared_ptr<const MyObject> that takes a shared_ptr<MyObject> (shown in Joseph Mansfield's answer), since a const MyObject can be bound without issue to a MyObject (see What is a converting constructor in C++ ? What is it for? and MSDN). Indeed, if you try to modify the value pointed to by ptr in myFunction, then you will get compilation errors indicating that you are trying to modify a constant object.
Related
I defined a class that receives an lambda function through constructor. The code is as follows. Why did the definition of t0 pass compilation after using the std::forward, and t1 incur an error?
#include <iostream>
template <typename Func>
class Test {
public:
Test(Func &&func) : m_func(std::forward<Func &&>(func)) {}
void Run() { m_func(); }
private:
Func &&m_func;
};
template <typename Func>
class Foo {
public:
Foo(Func &func) : m_func(func) {}
void Run() { m_func(); }
private:
Func &m_func;
};
int main() {
const auto print = []() { std::cout << "Hello" << std::endl; };
using Print = decltype(print);
Test<decltype(print)> t0(std::forward<Print&&>(print));
t0.Run();
Test<void()> t1(Print{});
t1.Run();
Foo<decltype(print)> t3(std::forward<Print&&>(print));
t3.Run();
Foo<void()> t4(Print{});
t4.Run();
}
[Update]
The definition of t1 should be as following. thx for #JaMiT.
Test<void(*)()> t1([]() { std::cout << "Hello" << std::endl; });
But I'm still confused about the definition of t0. If I deletes the std::forward, it incurs a compilation error.
[Update]
It works if I change the definition of t0 to Test<void (*)()> t0(print);. What's the difference between Test<decltype(print)> t0(print); that causes a compilation error?
Why did the definition of t0 pass compilation after using the std::forward,
Because that is how you declared the constructor of Test. The constructor takes as its parameter an rvalue reference to the template parameter. You explicitly provided decltype(print) as the template argument, so the constructor takes an rvalue of that type. There will be no copying (no pass by value), and an lvalue reference will not cut it. You must provide an rvalue.
By adding std::forward<Print&&>, you converted print to an rvalue. (It would have been simpler to add std::move instead. Rule of thumb: use std::forward when dealing with a "placeholder" type, such as a template parameter, and use std::move when dealing with a fixed type.)
Caution: After using std::forward<Print&&>(print) or std::move(print), you should treat print as uninitialized. That is, your initialization of t3 is a potential bug.
Another tweak that would make this compile is to specify decltype(print)& (with the ampersand at the end) as the template argument. When Func is an lvalue reference, Func&& collapses to Func, which means the constructor would take an lvalue reference instead of an rvalue reference. (Reference collapsing is a key component of forwarding references, on which perhaps you based your code? However, forwarding references would require the constructor to itself be a template.)
and t1 incur an error?
For t1, you specified the template argument as void(), which is the type of a function. Lambdas are objects, not functions, so there is a type mismatch.
On the other hand, a lambda with no captures (nothing inside the []) can implicitly convert to a pointer to a function. This is a place where confusion lurks, because functions also decay to pointers so people can get used to interchanging function types and pointer to function types. To specify a pointer to a function, use void(*)() instead of void().
Caution: Implicit conversions can wreak havoc when combined with references. Then again, you were already in the danger zone when you combined temporary objects (Print{}) with references. Your code would be safer if you changed the data member to Func m_func;. In addition to avoiding dangling references, this would be more efficient (less indirection) when storing a pointer-to-function.
template <typename Func>
class Test {
public:
// Constructor can still take a reference and forward it to the member.
Test(Func &&func) : m_func(std::forward<Func &&>(func)) {}
void Run() { m_func(); }
private:
Func m_func; // Not necessarily a reference
};
There are still potential issues (e.g. Func could be specified as a reference type), but at least this is safer. I choose to treat the remaining issues as out-of-scope for this question about syntax.
It works if I change the definition of t0 to Test<void (*)()> t0(print);.
This combines some concepts I presented earlier. The template argument is now a pointer to a function, so your lambda (print) will undergo an implicit conversion, similar to the t1 case. The result of an implicit conversion is an rvalue, which is what your constructor expects (no need to forward or move).
Caution: By "works", you really mean "compiles". The fact that you asked this question suggests you already know the following, but for the benefit of others: getting code to compile is a necessary step, but that by itself does not mean the code is correct and works as intended. Don't be satisfied when a tweak you do not understand makes your code compile – ask questions!
I was wondering if the implicit cast I have when passing a shared_ptr < T> as argument to a function taking shared_ptr < const T> involves some hidden costs (such as the construction of an extra copy).
void f(std::shared_ptr<const Widget> ){}
int main(){
std::shared_ptr<Widget> p;
f(p);
return 0;
}
I'm assuming that in both cases I am paying for the refcount increment and decrement.
Moreover I wonder why the code doesn't compile if I define the function f() with the following signature:
void f(shared_ptr<const Widget>& ){}
What wonders me more is the fact that this does:
void f(const shared_ptr<const Widget>& ){}
Why does pass by value work?
Your code works because of the smart_ptr constructor overload (9):
template< class Y >
shared_ptr( const shared_ptr<Y>& r ) noexcept;
Constructs a shared_ptr which shares ownership of the object managed
by r. If r manages no object, this manages no object too. The
template overload doesn't participate in overload resolution if Y is
not implicitly convertible to (until C++17)compatible with (since
C++17) T*.
Why does it not compile when the method expects a shared_ptr<const Widget>&?
If you change the signature to
void f(shared_ptr<const Widget>& ){}
You cannot have the conversion and passing to the method in one step anymore, because a temporary (the one resulting from the conversion) cannot bind to a non-const reference. However, you can still do it in two steps:
int main(){
std::shared_ptr<Widget> p;
std::shared_ptr<const Widget> p2{p};
// f(p); // error: cannot bind non-const reference to temporary
f(p2); // OK
return 0;
}
Is there some overhead?
Concerning overhead: Yes there is a smart_ptr<const Widget> being contructed and then passed to the method (like it is shown explicitly in the above snippet).
Why does it again work when the method expects a const shared_ptr<const Widget>&?
Concerning your edit, why does it work again if you change the signature to this:
void f(const shared_ptr<const Widget>& ){}
In that case if you pass a shared_ptr<Widget>, there is still a converison taking place. However, now the temporary resulting from the conversion is allowed to bind to a const reference. Anyhow the method is not allowed to modify it, so there is no danger in allowing to pass a temporary.
Just another example
Note that temporaries not binding to non-const references is a rare case of C++ helping you to avoid stupid mistakes. Consider this:
void foo(int& x) { x += 2; }
int bar() { return 3; }
int main() { foo(bar()); } // error !
It just doesnt make much sense to pass a r-value to a function that expects a non-const l-value reference. You'd have no way to observe the changes made by foo on the value returned by bar.
Passing smartpointers # cpp core guidelines
Concerning passing smartpointers to funcions, note that the cpp coreguidelines has some items on that. The bottomline is: If the method is not participating in reference counting (probably the most common case) then dont pass a smartpointer but a raw pointer.
If you want to bind a reference to a function f, you can use std::bind(f, std::ref(x)). In this case f takes a reference or makes a copy.
Now I have a function void g(T & t). I would like to bind the input argument to std::shared_ptr<T> mySharedPtr like this: std::bind(g, mySharedPtr). This would guarantee that mySharedPtr's data would have a lifetime at least as long as the bind. But since g takes a reference, this does not type-check.
Is there something similar to std::ref that takes a std::shared_ptr and dereferences it before passing it into g? If not, could I make one myself?
(If you give an answer using lambdas, please also include one without lambdas since my compiler does not support them.)
Edit: std::bind(g, std::ref(*mySharedPtr)) does not work since it loses the lifetime guarantee of the std::shared_ptr.
It seems you could create a deref() function which would create an object dereferencing something looking like a pointer upon conversion:
template <typename P>
class pointer_wrapper {
P ptr;
public:
pointer_wrapper(P p): ptr(p) {}
operator decltype(*std::declval<P>())&() {
return *ptr;
}
};
template <typename P>
pointer_wrapper<P> deref(P p) {
return p;
}
It may be better to make the conversion a member template to allow a few more conversions.
For move enabled classes is there a difference between this two?
struct Foo {
typedef std::vector<std::string> Vectype;
Vectype m_vec;
//this or
void bar(Vectype&& vec)
{
m_vec = std::move(vec);
}
//that
void bar(Vectype vec)
{
m_vec = std::move(vec);
}
};
int main()
{
Vectype myvec{"alpha","beta","gamma"};
Foo fool;
fool.bar(std::move(myvec));
}
My understanding is that if you use a lvalue myvec you also required to introduce const
Vectype& version of Foo::bar() since Vectype&& won't bind. That's aside, in the rvalue case, Foo::bar(Vectype) will construct the vector using the move constructor or better yet elide the copy all together seeing vec is an rvalue (would it?). So is there a compelling reason to not to prefer by value declaration instead of lvalue and rvalue overloads?
(Consider I need to copy the vector to the member variable in any case.)
The pass-by-value version allows an lvalue argument and makes a copy of it. The rvalue-reference version can't be called with an lvalue argument.
Use const Type& when you don't need to change or copy the argument at all, use pass-by-value when you want a modifiable value but don't care how you get it, and use Type& and Type&& overloads when you want something slightly different to happen depending on the context.
The pass-by-value function is sufficient (and equivalent), as long as the argument type has an efficient move constructor, which is true in this case for std::vector.
Otherwise, using the pass-by-value function may introduce an extra copy-construction compared to using the pass-by-rvalue-ref function.
See the answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/7587151/1190077 to the related question Do I need to overload methods accepting const lvalue reference for rvalue references explicitly? .
Yes, the first one (Vectype&& vec) won't accept a const object or simply lvalue.
If you want to save the object inside like you do, it's best to copy(or move if you pass an rvalue) in the interface and then move, just like you did in your second example.
This is a follow-on question to
C++0x rvalue references and temporaries
In the previous question, I asked how this code should work:
void f(const std::string &); //less efficient
void f(std::string &&); //more efficient
void g(const char * arg)
{
f(arg);
}
It seems that the move overload should probably be called because of the implicit temporary, and this happens in GCC but not MSVC (or the EDG front-end used in MSVC's Intellisense).
What about this code?
void f(std::string &&); //NB: No const string & overload supplied
void g1(const char * arg)
{
f(arg);
}
void g2(const std::string & arg)
{
f(arg);
}
It seems that, based on the answers to my previous question that function g1 is legal (and is accepted by GCC 4.3-4.5, but not by MSVC). However, GCC and MSVC both reject g2 because of clause 13.3.3.1.4/3, which prohibits lvalues from binding to rvalue ref arguments. I understand the rationale behind this - it is explained in N2831 "Fixing a safety problem with rvalue references". I also think that GCC is probably implementing this clause as intended by the authors of that paper, because the original patch to GCC was written by one of the authors (Doug Gregor).
However, I don't this is quite intuitive. To me, (a) a const string & is conceptually closer to a string && than a const char *, and (b) the compiler could create a temporary string in g2, as if it were written like this:
void g2(const std::string & arg)
{
f(std::string(arg));
}
Indeed, sometimes the copy constructor is considered to be an implicit conversion operator. Syntactically, this is suggested by the form of a copy constructor, and the standard even mentions this specifically in clause 13.3.3.1.2/4, where the copy constructor for derived-base conversions is given a higher conversion rank than other user-defined conversions:
A conversion of an expression of class type to the same class type is given Exact Match rank, and a conversion
of an expression of class type to a base class of that type is given Conversion rank, in spite of the fact that
a copy/move constructor (i.e., a user-defined conversion function) is called for those cases.
(I assume this is used when passing a derived class to a function like void h(Base), which takes a base class by value.)
Motivation
My motivation for asking this is something like the question asked in How to reduce redundant code when adding new c++0x rvalue reference operator overloads ("How to reduce redundant code when adding new c++0x rvalue reference operator overloads").
If you have a function that accepts a number of potentially-moveable arguments, and would move them if it can (e.g. a factory function/constructor: Object create_object(string, vector<string>, string) or the like), and want to move or copy each argument as appropriate, you quickly start writing a lot of code.
If the argument types are movable, then one could just write one version that accepts the arguments by value, as above. But if the arguments are (legacy) non-movable-but-swappable classes a la C++03, and you can't change them, then writing rvalue reference overloads is more efficient.
So if lvalues did bind to rvalues via an implicit copy, then you could write just one overload like create_object(legacy_string &&, legacy_vector<legacy_string> &&, legacy_string &&) and it would more or less work like providing all the combinations of rvalue/lvalue reference overloads - actual arguments that were lvalues would get copied and then bound to the arguments, actual arguments that were rvalues would get directly bound.
Clarification/edit: I realize this is virtually identical to accepting arguments by value for movable types, like C++0x std::string and std::vector (save for the number of times the move constructor is conceptually invoked). However, it is not identical for copyable, but non-movable types, which includes all C++03 classes with explicitly-defined copy constructors. Consider this example:
class legacy_string { legacy_string(const legacy_string &); }; //defined in a header somewhere; not modifiable.
void f(legacy_string s1, legacy_string s2); //A *new* (C++0x) function that wants to move from its arguments where possible, and avoid copying
void g() //A C++0x function as well
{
legacy_string x(/*initialization*/);
legacy_string y(/*initialization*/);
f(std::move(x), std::move(y));
}
If g calls f, then x and y would be copied - I don't see how the compiler can move them. If f were instead declared as taking legacy_string && arguments, it could avoid those copies where the caller explicitly invoked std::move on the arguments. I don't see how these are equivalent.
Questions
My questions are then:
Is this a valid interpretation of the standard? It seems that it's not the conventional or intended one, at any rate.
Does it make intuitive sense?
Is there a problem with this idea that I"m not seeing? It seems like you could get copies being quietly created when that's not exactly expected, but that's the status quo in places in C++03 anyway. Also, it would make some overloads viable when they're currently not, but I don't see it being a problem in practice.
Is this a significant enough improvement that it would be worth making e.g. an experimental patch for GCC?
What about this code?
void f(std::string &&); //NB: No const string & overload supplied
void g2(const std::string & arg)
{
f(arg);
}
...However, GCC and MSVC both reject g2 because of clause 13.3.3.1.4/3, which prohibits lvalues from binding to rvalue ref arguments. I understand the rationale behind this - it is explained in N2831 "Fixing a safety problem with rvalue references". I also think that GCC is probably implementing this clause as intended by the authors of that paper, because the original patch to GCC was written by one of the authors (Doug Gregor)....
No, that's only half of the reason why both compilers reject your code. The other reason is that you can't initialize a reference to non-const with an expression referring to a const object. So, even before N2831 this didn't work. There is simply no need for a conversion because a string is a already a string. It seems you want to use string&& like string. Then, simply write your function f so that it takes a string by value. If you want the compiler to create a temporary copy of a const string lvalue just so you can invoke a function taking a string&&, there wouldn't be a difference between taking the string by value or by rref, would it?
N2831 has little to do with this scenario.
If you have a function that accepts a number of potentially-moveable arguments, and would move them if it can (e.g. a factory function/constructor: Object create_object(string, vector, string) or the like), and want to move or copy each argument as appropriate, you quickly start writing a lot of code.
Not really. Why would you want to write a lot of code? There is little reason to clutter all your code with const&/&& overloads. You can still use a single function with a mix of pass-by-value and pass-by-ref-to-const -- depending on what you want to do with the parameters. As for factories, the idea is to use perfect forwarding:
template<class T, class... Args>
unique_ptr<T> make_unique(Args&&... args)
{
T* ptr = new T(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
return unique_ptr<T>(ptr);
}
...and all is well. A special template argument deduction rule helps differentiating between lvalue and rvalue arguments and std::forward allows you to create expressions with the same "value-ness" as the actual arguments had. So, if you write something like this:
string foo();
int main() {
auto ups = make_unique<string>(foo());
}
the string that foo returned is automatically moved to the heap.
So if lvalues did bind to rvalues via an implicit copy, then you could write just one overload like create_object(legacy_string &&, legacy_vector &&, legacy_string &&) and it would more or less work like providing all the combinations of rvalue/lvalue reference overloads...
Well, and it would be pretty much equivalent to a function taking the parameters by value. No kidding.
Is this a significant enough improvement that it would be worth making e.g. an experimental patch for GCC?
There's no improvement.
I don't quite see your point in this question. If you have a class that is movable, then you just need a T version:
struct A {
T t;
A(T t):t(move(t)) { }
};
And if the class is traditional but has an efficient swap you can write the swap version or you can fallback to the const T& way
struct A {
T t;
A(T t) { swap(this->t, t); }
};
Regarding the swap version, I would rather go with the const T& way instead of that swap. The main advantage of the swap technique is exception safety and is to move the copy closer to the caller so that it can optimize away copies of temporaries. But what do you have to save if you are just constructing the object anyway? And if the constructor is small, the compiler can look into it and can optimize away copies too.
struct A {
T t;
A(T const& t):t(t) { }
};
To me, it doesn't seem right to automatically convert a string lvalue to a rvalue copy of itself just to bind to a rvalue reference. An rvalue reference says it binds to rvalue. But if you try binding to an lvalue of the same type it better fails. Introducing hidden copies to allow that doesn't sound right to me, because when people see a X&& and you pass a X lvalue, I bet most will expect that there is no copy, and that binding is directly, if it works at all. Better fail out straight away so the user can fix his/her code.