So I have my class Test.H which has a struct in it.
Class Test{
private:
struct Data
{
char *first;
int number;
int count;
};
Data *myStruct;
I am trying to use the myStruct in my User.C initialiser.
//User.C
#include "Test.H"
Test::Test(const char *alp){
myStruct.number = 0;
}
And I get an segmentation fault and error from valgrind.
I figured initially that it was due to Data* myStruct being in private, but after writing a function like this below:
Data getStruct(){
return myStruct;
}
It will still give me errors when I use it in User.C
You need to construct the struct before you can do anything with it. Calling the default constructor will initialises it's fields to 0.
You had class capitalised, that was wrong. I also don't see a reason why it has to be a pointer, so I removed that. Lastly, I added a destructor in Data so that first will be deleted. I assume it is a cstring, so I used delete[]. If it is something else, delete it in whatever manner is appropriate.
If you must have a pointer, modify the call to the constructor to use new, delete the struct in the destructor ~Test(), and reference members of myStruct with the -> operator.
class Test {
public:
struct Data {
const char* first;
int number;
int count;
~Data() {
delete[] first;
}
};
Test(const char *alp) {
// Default constructor initialises struct's fields to 0.
myStruct = Data();
myStruct.count = 7;
}
private:
Data myStruct;
};
I need to create a doubly linked list on a cuda device.
I have the host code:
class Foo
{
public:
int my_index;
static int count;
static int index;
static Foo* first;
static Foo* last;
Foo* next;
Foo* prev;
Foo(); //adds object to list
~Foo(); //deletes object from list
}
Foo* Foo::first = 0;
Foo* Foo::last = 0;
int Foo::count = 0;
int Foo::index = 0;
when i want to iterate through it:
for (Foo* pr = Foo::first; pr; pr = pr->next)
{
//do something
}
My first problem is:
there are several other classes that inherit from Foo
and they have differrent sizes, so how can I:
either copy all
created classes of type Foo and all derived classes to the device
or even better, completely store the whole linked list from Foo on the device
I dont have to access the data from Foo on the host,
I need it only on the device.
My second problem:
I have multiple CUDA devices (3 CUDA capable graphic cards)
how could i access the device doubly linked list on both devices?
peer-to-peer copy?
something else?
I'm not familiar with CUDA, but it sounds you need to transform each object into some form so that it can be transferred to the device, and the problem is that the objects are different sizes and have different contents. If so, you should be able to solve the problem with a virtual function that transforms each object into a form that can be transferred according to its type. For example, if you were transferring data as binary using a void * buffer, it might look like:
class Foo
{
public:
// ... Everything else ...
virtual void *add_transfer_data(void *buffer)
{
// Copy whatever makes sense for a Foo object into the buffer.
memcpy(buffer, [something], n);
return reinterpret_cast<unsigned char *>(buffer) + n;
}
};
class Bar: public Foo
{
public:
// ... Everything else ...
virtual void *add_transfer_data(void *buffer)
{
// First, take care of the Foo part of the object.
buffer = Foo::add_transfer_data(buffer, buffer_size);
// Now copy whatever else a Bar object needs into the buffer.
memcpy(buffer, [something], m);
return reinterpret_cast<unsigned char *>(buffer) + m;
}
};
void transfer_data(void *buffer)
{
void *next_location = buffer;
for (Foo* pr = Foo::first; pr; pr = pr->next)
{
next_location = pr->add_transfer_data(next_location);
}
// Send the contents of buffer to the device somehow.
}
Of course, your versions of add_transfer_data might be very different depending on the details of how the transfer works and what the objects look like. There might be nothing to write for just a plain Foo object, for example. Hopefully, though, this illustrates the central idea.
I don't know anything about CUDA, so there is likely a better answer.
If your problem is determining the size of an instance of Foo, then why not give the class a virtual size method?
// In Foo:
virtual size_t size() const;
// In class T, a derivation of Foo:
size_t size() const override { return sizeof(T); }
Apologies ahead of time, as I am not even sure how to phrase the question, but I was working on a homework assignment (to which the question is unrelated except that I ran into the problem working on the assignment) and came across certain problem (this is just an extraction and generalization, I left out destructors, etc...):
class idType {
int _id;
public:
int getID() { return _id; }
idType(int in = -1) : _id(-1) {}
};
class Foo {
static int _count;
idType* _id; //int wrapper just for examples sake
public:
Foo() { _id = new idType(_count); ++_count; }
idType* getID() { if(_id) return _id; return NULL; } //ERROR WHEN CALLED FROM BELOW
};
class Bar {
Foo* _foo;
public:
Bar(Foo* foo = NULL) : _foo(foo) {}
Foo* getFoo() { if(_foo) return _foo; return NULL; }
};
int foo::_count = 0;
int main() {
Bar BAR;
if(BAR.getFoo()->getID() && BAR.getFoo()); //RUN TIME ACCESS VIOLATION ERROR
return 0;
};
As I mentioned, this is not the code I am working with, but I believe it more clearly identifies what is happening. BAR passes the getFoo() check, so _foo isn't(?) NULL but getFoo()->getID() faults at if(_id).
Is the static variable somehow preventing any NULL instance of a pointer to that class type from existing?
The reason I asked that at first was because when I commented out the static variable lines in my original program, the program worked fine. HOWEVER, after trying this code (which more or less emulates what I am doing) removing the static variable lines makes no difference, it still faults the same.
This may be simple, but I am at a loss as to what is wrong. Thank you much for any help.
Check pointers before using them.
int main()
{
Bar BAR;
Foo *pFoo = BAR.getFoo();
if (pFoo && pFoo->getID())
{
// do something
}
return 0;
};
You are not creating a Foo instance anywhere, and not passing a Foo* to the Bar constructor, so Bar::_foo gets initialize to NULL, which is what Bar::getFoo() returns. And then your if statement crashes due to your backwards use of short-circuit logic (you are trying to access Foo::getID() before first validating that Bar::getFoo() returns a non-NULL Foo* pointer).
You have to pass pointer to Foo object to BAR
int main() {
Bar BAR(new Foo);
//Reverse the condition, check for pointer validity first
if(BAR.getFoo() && BAR.getFoo()->getID());
return 0;
};
Provide the destructor to cleanup _foo after usage
~Bar() { if(_foo) delete _foo; _foo=NULL; }
I'm trying to modify some variables [not necessary from the same class/struct] from keyboard's shortcuts, something like that:
A foo struct containing variables:
struct Foo {
int a;
float b;
};
struct Foo2 {
int c;
};
And a main like:
int main() {
Foo f;
Foo2 f2
void* p = &(f.a); //it could be &(f2.c)
if ('A' key activated) {
*p += 1;
}
}
Currently, I'm stucked at this point:
error: invalid operands to binary expression ('void' and 'int')
The only way to make it work is to change:
*p += 1;
By:
*(int*)p += 1;
Which is not a good solution, because I should not know the type pointed by p. Is there a way to do that?
Converting the pointer to void* lost the type information and the compiler will not know how to increment. Why don't you make a pointer to Foo instead?
int main() {
Foo f;
Foo* p = &f;
if ('A' key activated) {
p->a += 1;
}
}
Also keep in mind that incrementing a float is not a good idea!
For the quesion in the comment of this answer:
struct FooBar
{
int *a;
float *b;
};
int main() {
Foo f;
Bar b;
FooBar fb{&f.a, &b.b};
if ('A' key activated) {
*(fb.a) += 1;
}
}
Note that this solution is rather C-style. Look at lethal-guitar's answer for a more C++-style solution.
Edit: At first I didn't realize that you want to have different types per entry. Based on the task of handling keyboard shortcuts, you could use a polymorphic class, and put instances of it into a std::map:
class KeyHandler {
public:
virtual void onKeyStroke() = 0;
};
class MyHandler : public KeyHandler {
public:
MyHandler(int& value) : myValue(value) {}
virtual void onKeyStroke() {
myValue_ += 1;
}
private:
int& myValue_; // Other subclasses could have other data
};
// Now place instances of different Handlers into a std::map
typedef std::shared_ptr<KeyHandler> PKeyHandler;
std::map<char, PKeyHandler> bindings;
bindings['A'] = PKeyHandler(new IncrementIntHandler(&someInt));
bindings['B'] = PKeyHandler(new IncrementFloatHandler(&someFloat));
// The actual input handler then just invokes
// the correct handler for a key stroke.
bindings[keyCode]->onKeyStroke();
That way, you can define a handler class for every action you want to support, and implement the corresponding logic into these classes. You could make the base class' implementation just do nothing to handle non-mapped keys, etc.
Sure, use an int pointer instead:
int * p = &f.a;
if ( /* condition */ ) { ++*p; }
Consider the following code:
class A
{
B* b; // an A object owns a B object
A() : b(NULL) { } // we don't know what b will be when constructing A
void calledVeryOften(…)
{
if (b)
delete b;
b = new B(param1, param2, param3, param4);
}
};
My goal: I need to maximize performance, which, in this case, means minimizing the amount of memory allocations.
The obvious thing to do here is to change B* b; to B b;. I see two problems with this approach:
I need to initialize b in the constructor. Since I don't know what b will be, this means I need to pass dummy values to B's constructor. Which, IMO, is ugly.
In calledVeryOften(), I'll have to do something like this: b = B(…), which is wrong for two reasons:
The destructor of b won't be called.
A temporary instance of B will be constructed, then copied into b, then the destructor of the temporary instance will be called. The copy and the destructor call could be avoided. Worse, calling the destructor could very well result in undesired behavior.
So what solutions do I have to avoid using new? Please keep in mind that:
I only have control over A. I don't have control over B, and I don't have control over the users of A.
I want to keep the code as clean and readable as possible.
I liked Klaim's answer, so I wrote this up real fast. I don't claim perfect correctness but it looks pretty good to me. (i.e., the only testing it has is the sample main below)
It's a generic lazy-initializer. The space for the object is allocated once, and the object starts at null. You can then create, over-writing previous objects, with no new memory allocations.
It implements all the necessary constructors, destructor, copy/assignment, swap, yadda-yadda. Here you go:
#include <cassert>
#include <new>
template <typename T>
class lazy_object
{
public:
// types
typedef T value_type;
typedef const T const_value_type;
typedef value_type& reference;
typedef const_value_type& const_reference;
typedef value_type* pointer;
typedef const_value_type* const_pointer;
// creation
lazy_object(void) :
mObject(0),
mBuffer(::operator new(sizeof(T)))
{
}
lazy_object(const lazy_object& pRhs) :
mObject(0),
mBuffer(::operator new(sizeof(T)))
{
if (pRhs.exists())
{
mObject = new (buffer()) T(pRhs.get());
}
}
lazy_object& operator=(lazy_object pRhs)
{
pRhs.swap(*this);
return *this;
}
~lazy_object(void)
{
destroy();
::operator delete(mBuffer);
}
// need to make multiple versions of this.
// variadic templates/Boost.PreProccesor
// would help immensely. For now, I give
// two, but it's easy to make more.
void create(void)
{
destroy();
mObject = new (buffer()) T();
}
template <typename A1>
void create(const A1 pA1)
{
destroy();
mObject = new (buffer()) T(pA1);
}
void destroy(void)
{
if (exists())
{
mObject->~T();
mObject = 0;
}
}
void swap(lazy_object& pRhs)
{
std::swap(mObject, pRhs.mObject);
std::swap(mBuffer, pRhs.mBuffer);
}
// access
reference get(void)
{
return *get_ptr();
}
const_reference get(void) const
{
return *get_ptr();
}
pointer get_ptr(void)
{
assert(exists());
return mObject;
}
const_pointer get_ptr(void) const
{
assert(exists());
return mObject;
}
void* buffer(void)
{
return mBuffer;
}
// query
const bool exists(void) const
{
return mObject != 0;
}
private:
// members
pointer mObject;
void* mBuffer;
};
// explicit swaps for generality
template <typename T>
void swap(lazy_object<T>& pLhs, lazy_object<T>& pRhs)
{
pLhs.swap(pRhs);
}
// if the above code is in a namespace, don't put this in it!
// specializations in global namespace std are allowed.
namespace std
{
template <typename T>
void swap(lazy_object<T>& pLhs, lazy_object<T>& pRhs)
{
pLhs.swap(pRhs);
}
}
// test use
#include <iostream>
int main(void)
{
// basic usage
lazy_object<int> i;
i.create();
i.get() = 5;
std::cout << i.get() << std::endl;
// asserts (not created yet)
lazy_object<double> d;
std::cout << d.get() << std::endl;
}
In your case, just create a member in your class: lazy_object<B> and you're done. No manual releases or making copy-constructors, destructors, etc. Everything is taken care of in your nice, small re-usable class. :)
EDIT
Removed the need for vector, should save a bit of space and what-not.
EDIT2
This uses aligned_storage and alignment_of to use the stack instead of heap. I used boost, but this functionality exists in both TR1 and C++0x. We lose the ability to copy, and therefore swap.
#include <boost/type_traits/aligned_storage.hpp>
#include <cassert>
#include <new>
template <typename T>
class lazy_object_stack
{
public:
// types
typedef T value_type;
typedef const T const_value_type;
typedef value_type& reference;
typedef const_value_type& const_reference;
typedef value_type* pointer;
typedef const_value_type* const_pointer;
// creation
lazy_object_stack(void) :
mObject(0)
{
}
~lazy_object_stack(void)
{
destroy();
}
// need to make multiple versions of this.
// variadic templates/Boost.PreProccesor
// would help immensely. For now, I give
// two, but it's easy to make more.
void create(void)
{
destroy();
mObject = new (buffer()) T();
}
template <typename A1>
void create(const A1 pA1)
{
destroy();
mObject = new (buffer()) T(pA1);
}
void destroy(void)
{
if (exists())
{
mObject->~T();
mObject = 0;
}
}
// access
reference get(void)
{
return *get_ptr();
}
const_reference get(void) const
{
return *get_ptr();
}
pointer get_ptr(void)
{
assert(exists());
return mObject;
}
const_pointer get_ptr(void) const
{
assert(exists());
return mObject;
}
void* buffer(void)
{
return mBuffer.address();
}
// query
const bool exists(void) const
{
return mObject != 0;
}
private:
// types
typedef boost::aligned_storage<sizeof(T),
boost::alignment_of<T>::value> storage_type;
// members
pointer mObject;
storage_type mBuffer;
// non-copyable
lazy_object_stack(const lazy_object_stack& pRhs);
lazy_object_stack& operator=(lazy_object_stack pRhs);
};
// test use
#include <iostream>
int main(void)
{
// basic usage
lazy_object_stack<int> i;
i.create();
i.get() = 5;
std::cout << i.get() << std::endl;
// asserts (not created yet)
lazy_object_stack<double> d;
std::cout << d.get() << std::endl;
}
And there we go.
Simply reserve the memory required for b (via a pool or by hand) and reuse it each time you delete/new instead of reallocating each time.
Example :
class A
{
B* b; // an A object owns a B object
bool initialized;
public:
A() : b( malloc( sizeof(B) ) ), initialized(false) { } // We reserve memory for b
~A() { if(initialized) destroy(); free(b); } // release memory only once we don't use it anymore
void calledVeryOften(…)
{
if (initialized)
destroy();
create();
}
private:
void destroy() { b->~B(); initialized = false; } // hand call to the destructor
void create( param1, param2, param3, param4 )
{
b = new (b) B( param1, param2, param3, param4 ); // in place new : only construct, don't allocate but use the memory that the provided pointer point to
initialized = true;
}
};
In some cases a Pool or ObjectPool could be a better implementation of the same idea.
The construction/destruction cost will then only be dependante on the constructor and destructor of the B class.
How about allocating the memory for B once (or for it's biggest possible variant) and using placement new?
A would store char memB[sizeof(BiggestB)]; and a B*. Sure, you'd need to manually call the destructors, but no memory would be allocated/deallocated.
void* p = memB;
B* b = new(p) SomeB();
...
b->~B(); // explicit destructor call when needed.
If B correctly implements its copy assignment operator then b = B(...) should not call any destructor on b. It is the most obvious solution to your problem.
If, however, B cannot be appropriately 'default' initialized you could do something like this. I would only recommend this approach as a last resort as it is very hard to get safe. Untested, and very probably with corner case exception bugs:
// Used to clean up raw memory of construction of B fails
struct PlacementHelper
{
PlacementHelper() : placement(NULL)
{
}
~PlacementHelper()
{
operator delete(placement);
}
void* placement;
};
void calledVeryOften(....)
{
PlacementHelper hp;
if (b == NULL)
{
hp.placement = operator new(sizeof(B));
}
else
{
hp.placement = b;
b->~B();
b = NULL; // We can't let b be non-null but point at an invalid B
}
// If construction throws, hp will clean up the raw memory
b = new (placement) B(param1, param2, param3, param4);
// Stop hp from cleaning up; b points at a valid object
hp.placement = NULL;
}
A quick test of Martin York's assertion that this is a premature optimisation, and that new/delete are optimised well beyond the ability of mere programmers to improve. Obviously the questioner will have to time his own code to see whether avoiding new/delete helps him, but it seems to me that for certain classes and uses it will make a big difference:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int g_construct = 0;
int g_destruct = 0;
struct A {
std::vector<int> vec;
A (int a, int b) : vec((a*b) % 2) { ++g_construct; }
~A() {
++g_destruct;
}
};
int main() {
const int times = 10*1000*1000;
#if DYNAMIC
std::cout << "dynamic\n";
A *x = new A(1,3);
for (int i = 0; i < times; ++i) {
delete x;
x = new A(i,3);
}
#else
std::cout << "automatic\n";
char x[sizeof(A)];
A* yzz = new (x) A(1,3);
for (int i = 0; i < times; ++i) {
yzz->~A();
new (x) A(i,3);
}
#endif
std::cout << g_construct << " constructors and " << g_destruct << " destructors\n";
}
$ g++ allocperf.cpp -oallocperf -O3 -DDYNAMIC=0 -g && time ./allocperf
automatic
10000001 constructors and 10000000 destructors
real 0m7.718s
user 0m7.671s
sys 0m0.030s
$ g++ allocperf.cpp -oallocperf -O3 -DDYNAMIC=1 -g && time ./allocperf
dynamic
10000001 constructors and 10000000 destructors
real 0m15.188s
user 0m15.077s
sys 0m0.047s
This is roughly what I expected: the GMan-style (destruct/placement new) code takes twice as long, and is presumably doing twice as much allocation. If the vector member of A is replaced with an int, then the GMan-style code takes a fraction of a second. That's GCC 3.
$ g++-4 allocperf.cpp -oallocperf -O3 -DDYNAMIC=1 -g && time ./allocperf
dynamic
10000001 constructors and 10000000 destructors
real 0m5.969s
user 0m5.905s
sys 0m0.030s
$ g++-4 allocperf.cpp -oallocperf -O3 -DDYNAMIC=0 -g && time ./allocperf
automatic
10000001 constructors and 10000000 destructors
real 0m2.047s
user 0m1.983s
sys 0m0.000s
This I'm not so sure about, though: now the delete/new takes three times as long as the destruct/placement new version.
[Edit: I think I've figured it out - GCC 4 is faster on the 0-sized vectors, in effect subtracting a constant time from both versions of the code. Changing (a*b)%2 to (a*b)%2+1 restores the 2:1 time ratio, with 3.7s vs 7.5]
Note that I've not taken any special steps to correctly align the stack array, but printing the address shows it's 16-aligned.
Also, -g doesn't affect the timings. I left it in accidentally after I was looking at the objdump to check that -O3 hadn't completely removed the loop. That pointers called yzz because searching for "y" didn't go quite as well as I'd hoped. But I've just re-run without it.
Are you sure that memory allocation is the bottleneck you think it is? Is B's constructor trivially fast?
If memory allocation is the real problem, then placement new or some of the other solutions here might well help.
If the types and ranges of the param[1..4] are reasonable, and the B constructor "heavy", you might also consider using a cached set of B. This presumes you are actually allowed to have more than one at a time, that it does not front a resource for example.
Like the others have already suggested: Try placement new..
Here is a complete example:
#include <new>
#include <stdio.h>
class B
{
public:
int dummy;
B (int arg)
{
dummy = arg;
printf ("C'Tor called\n");
}
~B ()
{
printf ("D'tor called\n");
}
};
void called_often (B * arg)
{
// call D'tor without freeing memory:
arg->~B();
// call C'tor without allocating memory:
arg = new(arg) B(10);
}
int main (int argc, char **args)
{
B test(1);
called_often (&test);
}
I'd go with boost::scoped_ptr here:
class A: boost::noncopyable
{
typedef boost::scoped_ptr<B> b_ptr;
b_ptr pb_;
public:
A() : pb_() {}
void calledVeryOften( /*…*/ )
{
pb_.reset( new B( params )); // old instance deallocated
// safely use *pb_ as reference to instance of B
}
};
No need for hand-crafted destructor, A is non-copyable, as it should be in your original code, not to leak memory on copy/assignment.
I'd suggest to re-think the design though if you need to re-allocate some inner state object very often. Look into Flyweight and State patterns.
Erm, is there some reason you can't do this?
A() : b(new B()) { }
void calledVeryOften(…)
{
b->setValues(param1, param2, param3, param4);
}
(or set them individually, since you don't have access to the B class - those values do have mutator-methods, right?)
Just have a pile of previously used Bs, and re-use them.