I have the following definition for boost unordered_map
typedef boost::unordered::unordered_map<std::String, CLIENT_STATE> CLIENT_MAP;
Where CLIENT_STATE is an struct defined as follow:
typedef struct{
unsigned char state;
/* socket fd of the client */
int fd;
/* File path requested by the client */
char file_path [255];
/* Current file offset */
unsigned long int offset;
} CLIENT_STATE;
When I try to add an element to CLIENT_MAP using emplace, the CLIENT_MAP creates a separate copy of the element, not related to the original definition. i.e. any modifications to the original element definition, won't do any changes to the element in the unordered_map.
I was told before, that using emplace won't clone the my original element, it will place it directly in the container check the link
So what's the best way to let the changes to the added element in the container affects the original definition and vice versa.
This is what I mean:
CLIENT_STATE new_client;
new_client.offset = 5;
client_map.emplace("Test", new_client);
new_client.offset = 10;
cout << client_map["Test"].offest;
The cout won't print 10, it will print 5.
Currently to solve this issue, after an element to the unordered_map I work on the returned std::pair and do the modification, but I think it is not efficient way to do that.
emplace, allows an object to be constructed from the arguments passed into it without needing to create the object to be passed in first, saving an overhead by removing a copy construction which normally happens as the result of creating objects to be inserted.
You can achieve what you want by use of pointers
typedef boost::unordered::unordered_map<std::String, CLIENT_STATE* > CLIENT_MAP;
But using pointers might prove problematic for memory handling, like object deletion, etc.
You can consider using boost::shared_ptr, something like following :
(I'm no shared_ptr/boost expert)
include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
boost::unordered::unordered_map<std::String,
boost::shared_ptr<CLIENT_STATE> > client_map ;
std::string s ="client1" ;
CLIENT_STATE *c1 = new CLIENT_STATE;
//c1->state, c1->id, etc
my_map[t] = c1 ;
If you needn't make copies of the objects stored in the map, you can use C++11's std::unique_ptr
You don't want to use emplace. What you want is called shared pointer semantics. However, for future visitors to this question, it may be useful to explain how to correctly use emplace with an associative container.
As #gha.st correctly commented, emplace will call the constructor of std::pair<std::string, CLIENT_STATE>, which will make copies of the string and CLIENT_STATE objects.
Since C++11, std::pair has an extra constructor overload taking a first argument of tag type std::piecewise_construct_t which allows the members of the std::pair themselves to be emplace-constructed. Observe:
client_map.emplace(std::piecewise_construct,
std::forward_as_tuple("Test"),
std::forward_as_tuple(5));
Now emplace will call the tag-overloaded constructor of pair, which in turn will emplace-construct its two data members from the arguments in the forwarded tuples.
In this case, CLIENT_STATE is an aggregate type, so (before C++20) it doesn't have a constructor which we can call with an int like this. But the above is the general technique to use with typical C++ class types. The best we can do for an aggregate before C++20 is to move-construct it from a temporary:
client_map.emplace("Test", CLIENT_STATE{ 0, 0, "", 5 });
In this case, this is of no help because the members of CLIENT_STATE are not move-constructible, so a move is the same as a copy.
Related
See also
C++ standard list and default-constructible types
Not a major issue, just annoying as I don't want my class to ever be instantiated without the particular arguments.
#include <map>
struct MyClass
{
MyClass(int t);
};
int main() {
std::map<int, MyClass> myMap;
myMap[14] = MyClass(42);
}
This gives me the following g++ error:
/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl_map.h:419: error: no matching function for call to ‘MyClass()’
This compiles fine if I add a default constructor; I am certain it's not caused by incorrect syntax.
This issue comes with operator[]. Quote from SGI documentation:
data_type& operator[](const key_type& k) - Returns a reference to the object
that is associated with a particular
key. If the map does not already
contain such an object, operator[]
inserts the default object
data_type().
If you don't have default constructor you can use insert/find functions.
Following example works fine:
myMap.insert( std::map< int, MyClass >::value_type ( 1, MyClass(1) ) );
myMap.find( 1 )->second;
Yes. Values in STL containers need to maintain copy semantics. IOW, they need to behave like primitive types (e.g. int) which means, among other things, they should be default-constructible.
Without this (and others requirements) it would be needlessly hard to implement the various internal copy/move/swap/compare operations on the data structures with which STL containers are implemented.
Upon reference to the C++ Standard, I see my answer was not accurate. Default-construction is, in fact, not a requirement:
From 20.1.4.1:
The default constructor is not
required. Certain container class
member function signatures specify the
default constructor as a default
argument. T() must be a well-defined
expression ...
So, strictly speaking, your value type only needs to be default constructible if you happen to be using a function of the container that uses the default constructor in its signature.
The real requirements (23.1.3) from all values stored in STL containers are CopyConstructible and Assignable.
There are also other specific requirements for particular containers as well, such as being Comparable (e.g. for keys in a map).
Incidentally, the following compiles with no error on comeau:
#include <map>
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(int t);
};
int main()
{
std::map<int, MyClass> myMap;
}
So this might be a g++ problem.
Check requirements of stored type of the stl::map. Many stl collection require that stored type contains some specific properties (default constructor, copy constructor, etc.).
Constructor without arguments is needed by the stl::map, because it's used, when operator[] is invoked with the key, which hasn't already been kept by the map. In this case the operator[] inserts the new entry consisting of the new key and value constructed using parameterless constructor. And this new value is then returned.
assume you have the following
class Person
{
public:
Person(int age) :age(age){}
Person() {} // default ctor
int age;
};
map<int, Person> m;
// accessing not-existent key, results in assigning default value to that key
m[10];
// creates default object for key:20 first then assigns age
m[20].age = 32;
what should happen if you wanna assign age for a nonexistent key?
for languages with null type such as javascript the map returns null and its is up to user to check for it before accessing the object or its internal fields.
c++ went a different approach and creates the Person using default constructor so the null is avoided all together
Check if:
You forgot the ';' after class declaration.
MyType should've been declared accordingly.
No default constructor there...
The std::map declaration seems correct, I think.
Most likely because std::pair requires it. std::pair holds two values using value semantics so you need to be able to instantiate them without parameters. So the code uses std::pair in various places to return the map values to the caller and this is commonly done by instantiating an empty pair and assigning the values into it before returning the local pair.
You could get around this with smart pointers using a map<int, smartptr<MyClass> > but that adds the overhead of checking for null pointers.
Given this map:
map<string,pair<mutex,set<string>>> m;
I would like to insert new elements at a key if they don't exist already. I could do this using the operator[], i.e.:
string possibly_new_key{"foo"};
m[possibly_new_key];
this will default construct my pair<mutex,set>, which is also what I want. The problem is that the performance of my program is my first and last concern. For that reason I would like to use map::insert or map::emplace_hint and use a hint (which I have to compute beforehand anyways) to "insert if it doesn't exist". But I cannot figure out how to call that function correctly because no matter what I try, either
std::pair default construction is ill-formed, or
std::mutex is not copyable and compilation fails.
What I kind of want (and doesn't work):
auto it=m.lower_bound(possibly_new_key);
//do_stuff_with_it(it);
auto new_value=make_pair(mutex{},set<string>{});
m.emplace_hint(it, piecewise_construct, forward_as_tuple(possibly_new_key), forward_as_tuple(new_value));
Is there a way to accomplish this using a hint, and either just default constructing the new value or providing a default constructed one and moving it?
Found out how it works!
emplace can actually take empty parameters to default construct piecewise. With std::forward_as_tuple() such a parameter is passed. So what I ended up with was:
m.emplace_hint(it, piecewise_construct, forward_as_tuple(possibly_new_key), forward_as_tuple());
This solution does everything I wanted in the first place, it uses a hint to possibly have amortized constant complexity and it default constructs the mapped type in place.
All the elements of the standard containers must be copyable.
You can use shared pointers as copyable elements:
struct MutexSetStr
{
std::mutex mutex;
std::set<std::string> data;
};
std::map< std::string, std::shared_ptr<MutexSetStr> > m;
std::shared_ptr<MutexSetStr> new_value(new MutexSetStr);
new_value.mutex.reset(new std::mutex);
m[new_key] = new_value; // or any other method to insert
Consider this program:
#include <map>
#include <string>
#define log magic_log_function // Please don't mind this.
//
// ADVENTURES OF PROGO THE C++ PROGRAM
//
class element;
typedef std::map<int, element> map_t;
class element {
public:
element(const std::string&);
element(const element&);
~element();
std::string name;
};
element::element(const std::string& arg)
: name(arg)
{
log("element ", arg, " constucted, ", this);
}
element::element(const element& other)
: name(other.name)
{
name += "-copy";
log("element ", name, " copied, ", this);
}
element::~element()
{
log("element ", name, " destructed, ", this);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
map_t map1; element b1("b1");
log(" > Done construction.");
log(" > Making map 1.");
map1.insert(std::pair<int, element>(1, b1));
log(" > Done making map 1.");
log(" > Before returning from main()");
}
It creates some objects on stack and inserts them into an std::map container, creating two extra temporary copies in the process:
element b1 constucted, 0x7fff228c6c60
> Done construction.
> Making map 1.
element b1-copy copied, 0x7fff228c6ca8
element b1-copy-copy copied, 0x7fff228c6c98
element b1-copy-copy-copy copied, 0x232d0c8
element b1-copy-copy destructed, 0x7fff228c6c98
element b1-copy destructed, 0x7fff228c6ca8
> Done making map 1.
> Before returning from main()
element b1 destructed, 0x7fff228c6c60
element b1-copy-copy-copy destructed, 0x232d0c8
We can get rid of one extra copy constructor call by changing the std::pair signature to std::pair<int, element&>, however, the second temporary is still created and immediately destroyed:
element b1 constucted, 0x7fff0fe75390
> Done construction.
> Making map 1.
element b1-copy copied, 0x7fff0fe753c8
element b1-copy-copy copied, 0x1bc4098
element b1-copy destructed, 0x7fff0fe753c8
> Done making map 1.
> Before returning from main()
element b1 destructed, 0x7fff0fe75390
element b1-copy-copy destructed, 0x1bc4098
Is there a way to make std::map just take an object on stack by reference and make a single internal copy of it?
This is one of the many use cases which motivated C++11's move functionality, supported by a host of new features, particularly rvalue references, and a variety of new standard library interfaces, including std::map::emplace, std::vector::emplace_back, etc.
If, for whatever reason, you cannot yet use C++11, you can at least console yourself with the thought that the problem has been recognized, and that a solution has been standardized and implemented, and that furthermore many of us are using it, some of us [1] in production-code. So, as the old joke has it, a solution exists and it's your call as to when you take it up.
Note that you don't have to use the emplace member function if your objects implement move constructors, which they may even do by default. This won't happen if the have explicit copy constructors, so your test above may produce observer effects (and indeed, it might also suppress compiler optimizations in the case of PODs, so even with C++03 you might not have the problem you think you do).
There are a variety of hacks available which kinda-sorta avoid copies with only "minor" source code alterations, but IMHO the best approach is to start moving towards C++11. Whatever you do, try to do it in a way that will make the inevitable migration less painful.
[Note 1]: Disclaimer: I no longer write production code, having more or less retired, so I'm not part of the "some of us" in that sentence.
Standard practice (with older C++ versions) where I've been is to use a Map of shared pointers.
Still creates a copy of the shared pointers, but that's usually much less onerous than copying large objects.
You can use emplace() :
The element is constructed in-place, i.e. no copy or move operations are performed. The constructor of the element type (value_type, that is, std::pair) is called with exactly the same arguments as supplied to the function
Well, if you dont have emplace, you can construct the element on the heap and pass pointers to map:
typedef std::map<int, element*> map_t;
...
printf(" > Making pair 1.\n");
std::pair<int, element*> pair(1, new element ("b1")) ;
printf(" > Making map 1.\n");
map1.insert(pair);
but then you are subject to memory-leaks if you dont take care when your map leaves scope...
To keep the long story short, I am unable to use the container from the STL and boost library and have to create my own.
My own generic container is coded in VC++6 and I need to know how to manually allocate memory for generic types before storing it in my own container. The generic types are all struct that can contain nested struct. All struct be it nested or not will contain only primitive types like char*, int, bool etc.
For example, when you call the insert function of std::vector, internally, std::vector will automatically perform a deep cloning of the generic type before storing it.
How can I duplicate this functionality (deep cloning of generic type) in my own container?
Please provide some sample code for performing deep cloning of generic type.
The std::vector (and most std containers) just call the type's copy constructor. This may or may not "deep clone" the object, depending on what the copy constructor does.
First and for all: if you want to clone any object, all it's aggregates should be cloned, too. This means that every struct/class involved in the cloning action should implement cloning behavior.
Then: the stl uses so called value-semantics: containers will always contain their elements 'by value'. Copying means creating copies of all container elements.
So in order to achieve cloning/deep copy behavior, the copy constructors of every member of the container's element type should implement deep copy behavior. Members of pointer-to-object type should also be deep-copied (not just copying the member pointer).
Note: code is untested, probably contains tons of exception-unsafety etc... and is merely used as a shallow :) example.
struct WithPointer {
int* pint;
WithPointer( int value = 0 ) : pint( new int ) { *pint = value; }
WithPointer( const WithPointer& other ) {
pint = new int;
*pint = *other.pint;
}
~WithPointer( ) { delete pint; } // important!
}
This class can be 'deep-copied' using an stl container:
std::vector<WithPointer> v;
WithPointer wp(1);
v.push_back( wp );
std::vector<WithPointer> v2 = v;
std::vector does not perform any "deep cloning" by itself. When you insert something into std::vector, the vector allocates raw memory for the new element in the appropriate space and then creates a new element in that memory area by using direct initialization (normally through placement-new) from the element you passed to the insertion method. In other words, in order to make a copy for a class type, std::vector calls the copy-constructor of the class type. If the element type is not a class type or a class type without appropriately defined copy-constructor, the deep copy will not take place.
This is what you should do in your container type, if you want to simulate copying functionality of std::vector.
See also
C++ standard list and default-constructible types
Not a major issue, just annoying as I don't want my class to ever be instantiated without the particular arguments.
#include <map>
struct MyClass
{
MyClass(int t);
};
int main() {
std::map<int, MyClass> myMap;
myMap[14] = MyClass(42);
}
This gives me the following g++ error:
/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl_map.h:419: error: no matching function for call to ‘MyClass()’
This compiles fine if I add a default constructor; I am certain it's not caused by incorrect syntax.
This issue comes with operator[]. Quote from SGI documentation:
data_type& operator[](const key_type& k) - Returns a reference to the object
that is associated with a particular
key. If the map does not already
contain such an object, operator[]
inserts the default object
data_type().
If you don't have default constructor you can use insert/find functions.
Following example works fine:
myMap.insert( std::map< int, MyClass >::value_type ( 1, MyClass(1) ) );
myMap.find( 1 )->second;
Yes. Values in STL containers need to maintain copy semantics. IOW, they need to behave like primitive types (e.g. int) which means, among other things, they should be default-constructible.
Without this (and others requirements) it would be needlessly hard to implement the various internal copy/move/swap/compare operations on the data structures with which STL containers are implemented.
Upon reference to the C++ Standard, I see my answer was not accurate. Default-construction is, in fact, not a requirement:
From 20.1.4.1:
The default constructor is not
required. Certain container class
member function signatures specify the
default constructor as a default
argument. T() must be a well-defined
expression ...
So, strictly speaking, your value type only needs to be default constructible if you happen to be using a function of the container that uses the default constructor in its signature.
The real requirements (23.1.3) from all values stored in STL containers are CopyConstructible and Assignable.
There are also other specific requirements for particular containers as well, such as being Comparable (e.g. for keys in a map).
Incidentally, the following compiles with no error on comeau:
#include <map>
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(int t);
};
int main()
{
std::map<int, MyClass> myMap;
}
So this might be a g++ problem.
Check requirements of stored type of the stl::map. Many stl collection require that stored type contains some specific properties (default constructor, copy constructor, etc.).
Constructor without arguments is needed by the stl::map, because it's used, when operator[] is invoked with the key, which hasn't already been kept by the map. In this case the operator[] inserts the new entry consisting of the new key and value constructed using parameterless constructor. And this new value is then returned.
assume you have the following
class Person
{
public:
Person(int age) :age(age){}
Person() {} // default ctor
int age;
};
map<int, Person> m;
// accessing not-existent key, results in assigning default value to that key
m[10];
// creates default object for key:20 first then assigns age
m[20].age = 32;
what should happen if you wanna assign age for a nonexistent key?
for languages with null type such as javascript the map returns null and its is up to user to check for it before accessing the object or its internal fields.
c++ went a different approach and creates the Person using default constructor so the null is avoided all together
Check if:
You forgot the ';' after class declaration.
MyType should've been declared accordingly.
No default constructor there...
The std::map declaration seems correct, I think.
Most likely because std::pair requires it. std::pair holds two values using value semantics so you need to be able to instantiate them without parameters. So the code uses std::pair in various places to return the map values to the caller and this is commonly done by instantiating an empty pair and assigning the values into it before returning the local pair.
You could get around this with smart pointers using a map<int, smartptr<MyClass> > but that adds the overhead of checking for null pointers.