In the C language, in order to initialize a static local variable to a value unknown during compilation, I would normally do something like this (for example):
void func()
{
static int var = INVALID_VALUE;
if (var == INVALID_VALUE)
var = some_other_func();
...
}
In the C++ language, I can simply do:
void func()
{
static int i = some_other_func();
...
}
The only way (that I can think of) for a C++ compiler to resolve it properly, is by replacing this code with a mechanism similar to the C example above.
But how would the compiler determine a "proper" invalid value? Or is there another way which I haven't taken into consideration?
Thanks
Clarification:
INVALID_VALUE is a value which function some_other_func never returns.
It is used in order to ensure that this function is never invoked more than once.
The compiler will not generate code to do it based on its value but on a thread safe flag that ensure that the code is only executed once.
Something like that:
void func()
{
static int i;
static bool i_initialized;
if (!i_initialized) {
i = some_other_func();
i_initialized = true;
}
}
Except that generally it is not a bool but a thread safe way of testing it.
According to code seen by disassembling and debugging the g++ compiled code, there is a hidden variable that is initialized to 0 and when the initialization is run it is set to 1.
So the next time the initialization code isn't executed.
Related
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.
I wonder, is the marked line in the below code correct. Because in this line the result of the function is assigned to the static variable prevRecCallResult (I'll call it "plain assignment"), which is changed inside this function (I'll call it "inside assignment").
Is it guaranteed, that the "inside assignment" is done, when the "plain assignment" executes?
int f(int _n)
{
if (_n >= 1)
{
static int prevRecCallResult;
prevRecCallResult = f(_n - 1); //<-- Is this line Ok?
return prevRecCallResult + 1;
}
else
return _n;
}
I know, the standard says, that a sequence point occurs:
At a function return, after the return value is copied into the
calling context.
, but I'm not sure, this is the answer to my question.
Update:
Considering replies I've received, I should clarify my question:
It's essence is: Is it true, that the prevRecCallResult is not in use by the assignment expression (in marked line) (i.e. is not occupied by it) until f(_n - 1) is finished? (And thus, until this moment, prevRecCallResult is absolutely free for any assignments inside f(_n - 1)?)
static int prevRecCallResult;
prevRecCallResult = f(_n - 1); //<-- Is this line Ok?
Your code is perfectly OK. But just wanted to make you remember that static int prevRecCallResult; executes only once. But prevRecCallResult = f(_n - 1); is assigned after each function call. Once function return prevRecCallResult's at time function's return value will be used in rest of the function.
One more thing, static variable will not die, after you return from function. So prevRecCallResult will not die across function calls.
As I remember all static variables as well as all global variables in C and C++ are assigned automatically to default value for their types - in this particular example default value for 'static int prevRecCallResult' will be 0. So your fears are unfounded (you can easily check this with debugger).
At the same time I cannot understand why you use static variable in this code... is it just simplified code for question or is it real code where you trying to economize memory on automatic variable of recursive function?
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);
}
Let's say you have a function in C/C++, that behaves a certain way the first time it runs. And then, all other times it behaves another way (see below for example). After it runs the first time, the if statement becomes redundant and could be optimized away if speed is important. Is there any way to make this optimization?
bool val = true;
void function1() {
if (val == true) {
// do something
val = false;
}
else {
// do other stuff, val is never set to true again
}
}
gcc has a builtin function that let you inform the implementation about branch prediction:
__builtin_expect
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html
For example in your case:
bool val = true;
void function1()
{
if (__builtin_expect(val, 0)) {
// do something
val = false;
}
else {
// do other stuff, val is never set to true again
}
}
You should only make the change if you're certain that it truly is a bottleneck. With branch-prediction, the if statement is probably instant, since it's a very predictable pattern.
That said, you can use callbacks:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
typedef void (*FunPtr) (void);
FunPtr method;
void subsequentRun()
{
std::cout << "subsequent call" << std::endl;
}
void firstRun()
{
std::cout << "first run" << std::endl;
method = subsequentRun;
}
int main()
{
method = firstRun;
method();
method();
method();
}
produces the output:
first run subsequent call subsequent call
You could use a function pointer but then it will require an indirect call in any case:
void (*yourFunction)(void) = &firstCall;
void firstCall() {
..
yourFunction = &otherCalls;
}
void otherCalls() {
..
}
void main()
{
yourFunction();
}
One possible method is to compile two different versions of the function (this can be done from a single function in the source with templates), and use a function pointer or object to decide at runtime. However, the pointer overhead will likely outweigh any potential gains unless your function is really expensive.
You could use a static member variable instead of a global variable..
Or, if the code you're running the first time changes something for all future uses (eg, opening a file?), you could use that change as a check to determine whether or not to run the code (ie, check if the file is open). This would save you the extra variable. Also, it might help with error checking - if for some reason the initial change is be unchanged by another operation (eg, the file is on removable media that is removed improperly), your check could try to re-do the change.
A compiler can only optimize what is known at compile time.
In your case, the value of val is only known at runtime, so it can't be optimized.
The if test is very quick, you shouldn't worry about optimizing it.
If you'd like to make the code a little bit cleaner you could make the variable local to the function using static:
void function() {
static bool firstRun = true;
if (firstRun) {
firstRun = false;
...
}
else {
...
}
}
On entering the function for the first time, firstRun would be true, and it would persist so each time the function is called, the firstRun variable will be the same instance as the ones before it (and will be false each subsequent time).
This could be used well with #ouah's solution.
Compilers like g++ (and I'm sure msvc) support generating profile data upon a first run, then using that data to better guess what branches are most likely to be followed, and optimizing accordingly. If you're using gcc, look at the -fprofile-generate option.
The expected behavior is that the compiler will optimize that if statement such that the else will be ordered first, thus avoiding the jmp operation on all your subsequent calls, making it pretty much as fast as if it wern't there, especially if you return somewhere in that else (thus avoiding having to jump past the 'if' statements)
One way to make this optimization is to split the function in two. Instead of:
void function1()
{
if (val == true) {
// do something
val = false;
} else {
// do other stuff
}
}
Do this:
void function1()
{
// do something
}
void function2()
{
// do other stuff
}
One thing you can do is put the logic into the constructor of an object, which is then defined static. If such a static object occurs in a block scope, the constructor is run the fist time that an execution of that scope takes place. The once-only check is emitted by the compiler.
You can also put static objects at file scope, and then they are initialized before main is called.
I'm giving this answer because perhaps you're not making effective use of C++ classes.
(Regarding C/C++, there is no such language. There is C and there is C++. Are you working in C that has to also compile as C++ (sometimes called, unofficially, "Clean C"), or are you really working in C++?)
What is "Clean C" and how does it differ from standard C?
To remain compiler INDEPENDENT you can code the parts of if() in one function and else{} in another. almost all compilers optimize the if() else{} - so, once the most LIKELY being the else{} - hence code the occasional executable code in if() and the rest in a separate function that's called in else
I'm having some weird issues with static initalization. I'm using a code generator to generate structs and serialization code for a message passing system I wrote. In order to have a way of easily allocating a message based on it's message id I have my code generator ouput something similar to the following for each message type:
MessageAllocator s_InputPushUserControllerMessageAlloc(INPUT_PUSH_USER_CONTROLLER_MESSAGE_ID, (AllocateMessageFunc)Create_InputPushUserControllerMessage);
The MessageAllocator class basically looks like this:
MessageAllocator::MessageAllocator( uint32_t messageTypeID, AllocateMessageFunc func )
{
if (!s_map) s_map = new std::map<uint32_t, AllocateMessageFunc>();
if (s_map->insert(std::make_pair(messageTypeID, func)).second == false)
{
//duplicate key!
ASSERT(false, L"Nooooo!");
}
s_count++;
}
MessageAllocator::~MessageAllocator()
{
s_count--;
if (s_count == 0) delete s_map;
}
where s_map and s_count are static members of MessageAllocator. This works most of the time but sometimes messages are not added to the map. For example, this particular message is not added unless i call Create_InputPushUserControllerMessage() somewhere in my startup code, however other messages work fine. I thought this might be something to do with the linker incorrectly thinking the type is unreferenced and removing it so I disabled that using the /OPT:NOREF switch (I'm using Visual Studio 2008 SP1) but that had no effect.
I'm aware of the problem of the "static initialization order fiasco" but as far as I know the order in which these objects are created shouldn't alter the result so this seems ok to me.
Any insight here would be appreciated.
Put the static into a class so it is a static member of a class
struct InputPushUserControllerMessageAlloc { static MessageAllocator s_obj; };
MessageAllocator InputPushUserControllerMessageAlloc::s_obj(
INPUT_PUSH_USER_CONTROLLER_MESSAGE_ID,
(AllocateMessageFunc)Create_InputPushUserControllerMessage);
The Standard allows it to delay initialization of objects having namespace scope until any function/object from its translation unit is used. If the initialization has side-effect, it can't be optimized out. But that doesn't forbid delaying it.
Not so of objects having class-scope. So that might forbid it optimizing something there.
I would change s_map from a static class member into a static method member:
std::map<uint32_t,AllocateMessageFunc>& MessageAllocator::getMap()
{
// Initialized on first use and destroyed correctly on program termination.
static std::map<uint32_t,AllocateMessageFunc> s_map;
return s_map;
}
MessageAllocator::MessageAllocator( uint32_t messageTypeID, AllocateMessageFunc func )
{
if (getMap().insert(std::make_pair(messageTypeID, func)).second == false)
{
//duplicate key!
ASSERT(false, L"Nooooo!");
}
}
No need for destructor or a count.
If your global objects are in separate DLL's(or shared libs) that are lazy loaded.
This may cause a problem similar to your description.
You are not setting the pointer back to null.
MessageAllocator::~MessageAllocator()
{
s_count--;
if (s_count == 0)
{
delete s_map;
s_map = 0;
}
}
Turns out that the object files containing the static initializers were not included by the linker because nothing referenced any functions in them. To work around this I extern "C"-ed one of the generated functions so that it would have a predictable non-mangled name and then forced a reference to it using a pragma like this for each message
#pragma comment(linker, "/include:Create_GraphicsDynamicMeshCreationMessage")
which I put in the generated header file that is later included in all the other non-generated files. It's MSVC only and kind of hack but I assume I can do something similar on GCC once I eventually port it.