Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
My question is simple, what is the performance loss due to reference length. I cannot explain myself but here is the sample:
between this
C* pC = m_a->m_b->m_c;
and this expression
C* pC = m_b->m_c;
I am asking this because I have a global class which has a Singleton pattern and holds everything. I am accessing all of its members from its members like this.
class Global
{
A* a;
X* x;
};
class A { B* b; };
class B { C* c; }; // etc
class X { Y* y; };
class Y { Z* z; };
class Z
{
void foo() { Global::GetInstance()->a->b->c->foo(); }
}
Is this a good design? Any advice for this? I am having some trouble with this topic too Qt Architecture Advice Needed
Every -> operator is an indexed indirection, which costs a cycle or two, depending on the processor, and may be invisible if its pipeline is good enough.
However the real question here is 'compared to what?' What other implementation techniques are you considering for solving this problem? Unless you have a viable alternative your question is really meaningless.
Similarly the frequently-asked question about the relative efficiency of virtual and non-virtual functions is meaningless unless it takes into account how to get the same effect both ways. In the non-virtual case this amounts at least to an 'if' or 'switch', whose cost has to be added in to the comparison.
Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to do a bit of refactoring and I am curious about how would you approach this problem.
Basically I'm trying to create an initialization function for each class. There are classes that inherit from some others, and i would like to use parent initialization function if possible. How would you address this?
I would like to use these structs with memcpy and maybe using also them with the keywords align and __attribute__((packed)); and they must be usable with extern "C". I would exclude then constructors and destructors.
An example to explain:
struct A
{
int a;
};
void initialize(A& a)
{
a = 0;
}
struct B : A
{
int b;
};
void initialize(B& b)
{
initialize(b); // here I want void initialize(A& a), not recursion
b = 0;
};
Maybe I have to do some kind of cast? Ideally I'm looking a solution that does not create overhead.
Use a static_cast.
In your code, the initialize(b) call will recurse infinitely, because b is better matched as B& than as A& (the argument of the function you want to call), thus the overload resolution picks the same function and recurs.
You specified that you want to initialise the A part of the b object. Why not tell that to the compiler? Tell it that you want to call initialise in it as though it was an A, like so:
initialize(static_cast<A&>(b));
As for your concern that you mentioned in the comment - no copies are being made here. If I used static_cast<A>, however, a temporary object would be created, but that's not the case. I am not casting b to an object of a type A. I am casting it to a reference of a type A, which will result in creation of temporary reference. Since A& matches with A& better than with B&, the first function will be chosen, thus avoiding the recursion.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
i need to get clear about, the best way to call the super class constructor/method explicitly.
I tried with the following both way to call superclass constructor:
Myclass::Myclass(int a, int b):X(a),Y(b)
{
// do something
}
and
Myclass::Myclass(int a, int b)
{
X = a;
Y = b;
}
So my question over here is:
Which is the best way to call super class constructor/method explicitly?
And what are the benefits will get in both way?
what is the best practice and why?
There is any performance issue lies with both way?
Regarding my question i found this link:
What are the rules for calling the superclass constructor? but still i have little more doubt what i asked above.
if there is any online tutorial, blog or video also u can mention over here, it will great help full for me. Thank in advance.....
The only correct way to call superclass's constructor is from the initialization list:
Myclass::Myclass(int a, int b)
:X(a),Y(b)
{}
The other way in fact calls different constructors:
Myclass::Myclass(int a, int b)
// implicit :X(),Y()
{
// These two don't call constructors but actually declare variables
X(a);
Y(b);
}
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
It would be nice, instead of gathering scattered information on Google (who doesn't understand symbols), to ask the many programming professionals on this site.
I am wondering about a few operators:
x->y vs (*x).y
x.*y vs *(x.y)
x->*y vs *(x).*y vs *(*(x).y) vs *(x->y)
Compared to each other, is one or the other faster?
Number 1 is just for convenience and already existed in C. Consider:
x->y->z
vs
(*(*x).y).z
The other two operators don't do what you think they do.
x.*y
calls the member function pointed to by y on the object referenced by x while
x->*y
does the same thing but for x being a pointer instead.
Here is an example of calling a member function through a pointer:
struct Foo {
void bar();
};
int main() {
typedef void (Foo::*foo_mem_ptr)();
// y points to Foo::bar
foo_mem_ptr y = &Foo::bar;
Foo x;
// call y with x as this
x.*y();
// same for pointer to x
Foo *px = &x;
px->*y();
}
As far as I know there is absolutely no difference between those operators in basic implementation - they are equivalent. However, You can override both * and -> to have different behaviour.
They are equivalent, it's just the syntactic sugar.
It's 1st and 2nd case mixed together.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am working on OOPs and using C++. I have one class accessing object of other class/struct.
struct data
{
int a;
int b;
string str;
} sd;
class format
{
int x;
void show()
{
cout << data.a << endl;
}
};
which one is best to use here class or struct?
First of all, it's struct, not strut.
Second, you cannot access member a like you do, data.a, but rather sd.a, because you need to access it on an instance, not on the name of the struct.
For the detailed differences between class and struct see this SO question and its two best rated answers.
I use this convention:
A struct only have members that it make sense to manipulate directly
A class may have complicated rules for assigning members
This somewhat fits well with the default accessibility rules. But as said before in this thread, the choice depends on convention.
that depends on your requirement the only difference in struct and class is in struct all members are public by default and private in case of class
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
class test {
public:
test(int value = 0): x(value) {}
int& get(){
return x;
}
private:
int x;
};
this will allow client code to mutate the private members
this is legal in C++, but why ?
Is there any situation where you would actually need to break the class encapsulation ?
Make a member as private, means you can not access it directly. But nothing restricts you to access it indirectly via a public member. It depends on you design. You can even do this:
class test {
public:
test() : x(y) {}
int &x;
private:
int y;
};
In your class, assume you want count how many times a member is read/write. So, you can make it private then put a member function which returns a refernce to the variable:
class test {
public:
test(int value = 0): x(value), count(0) {}
int& get(){
count++;
return x;
}
private:
int x;
int count;
};
I hope this example shows how making a member as private and then putting an indirect access to it can be useful.
Ffirst of all let's consider implementing what you describe. It would be very onerous to properly do so. Your example is easy enough. But what if the reference flowed through a number of functions before it reached the function that exposed it? The compiler would have to do exceptionally complex static analysis, beyond the levels of static analysis that are reasonable to expect from compiler writers.
So even if the designers wanted to ban this, it would not have been tractable to do so. Would the designers have wanted to stop this? Very doubtful. Had they done so, how would the [] operator be implemented on a container or a string?
Is there any situation where you would actually need to
break the class encapsulation
As example of the [] operator on containers and strings shows, this feature is in fact used to support encapsulation.
Why? Because C++ mainly tries to let you do whatever you want and not get in your way; it doesn't try very hard to keep you safe. If you want a safe language, use something else. You have something like object-orientation if you want to, but if you want to break out of that, more power to you. With great power comes great responsibility.
It's worth nothing that you don't even need this to break encapsulation; you could simply reinterpret a pointer to "test" as an integer and access the private field this way.