From what I understand, standard layout allows three things:
Empty base class optimization
Backwards compatibility with C with certain pointer casts
Use of offsetof
Now, included in the library is the is_standard_layout predicate metafunction, but I can't see much use for it in generic code as those C features I listed above seem extremely rare to need checking in generic code. The only thing I can think of is using it inside static_assert, but that is only to make code more robust and isn't required.
How is is_standard_layout useful? Are there any things which would be impossible without it, thus requiring it in the standard library?
General response
It is a way of validating assumptions. You wouldn't want to write code that assumes standard layout if that wasn't the case.
C++11 provides a bunch of utilities like this. They are particularly valuable for writing generic code (templates) where you would otherwise have to trust the client code to not make any mistakes.
Notes specific to is_standard_layout
It looks to me like the (pseudo code) definition of is_pod would roughly be...
// note: applied recursively to all members
bool is_pod(T) { return is_standard_layout(T) && is_trivial(T); }
So, you need to know is_standard_layout in order to implement is_pod. Given that, we might as well expose is_standard_layout as a tool available to library developers. Also of note: if you have a use-case for is_pod, you might want to consider the possibility that is_standard_layout might actually be a better (more accurate) choice in that case, since POD is essentially a subset of standard layout.
I get the feeling that they added every conceivable variant of type evaluation, regardless of any obvious value, just in case someone might encounter a need sometime before the next standard comes out. I doubt if piling on these "extra" type properties adds a significant additional burden to compiler developers.
There is a nice discussion of standard layout here: Why is C++11's POD "standard layout" definition the way it is?
There is also a lot of good detail at cppreference.com: Non-static data members
Related
Looking through a colleague's code, I see that some of its handles are stored as void pointers.
// Class header
void* hSomeSdk;
// Class implementation
hSomeSdk = new SomeSDK(...);
((SomeSDK*)hSomeSdk)->DoSomeWork();
Now I know that sometimes handles are void pointers because it may be unknown before runtime what will be the actual type of the handle. Or that it can help when we need to share the pointer without revealing its actual structure. But this does not seem to be the case in my situation: it will always be SomeSDK and it is not shared outside the class where it is created. Also the author of this code is gone from the company.
Are there other reasons why it would make sense to have it be a void pointer?
Since this is a member variable, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say your colleague wanted to minimize dependencies. Including the header for SomeSDK is probably undesirable just to define a pointer. The colleague may have had one of two reasons as far as I can see from the code you show:
They just didn't know they can add a forward declarations like class SomeSDK; to allow defining pointers. Some programmers just aren't aware of it.
They couldn't forward declare it. If SomeSDK is not a class, but a type alias (aka typedef), then it's not possible to forward declare it exactly. One can only declare the class it aliases, but that in turn may be an implementation detail that's hard to keep track of. Even the standard library has a similar problem, that is why it provides iosfwd to make forward declaring standard stream types easier.
If the code is peppered with casts of this handle, then the design should have been reworked ages ago. Otherwise, if it's in one place (or a few at most) only, I can see why the people maintaining it could live with it peacefully.
Nope.
If I had to guess, the ex-colleague was unfamiliar with forward declarations and thus didn't know they could still do SomeSDK* in the header without including the entire SomeSDK definition.
Given the constraints you've mentioned, the only thing this pattern achieves is to eliminate some type safety, make the code harder to read/maintain, and generate a Stack Overflow question.
void* were popular and needed back in C. They are convenient in the sense that they can be easily cast to anything. If you need to cast from double* to char*, you have to make a mid cast to void*.
The problem with void* is that they are too flexible: they do not convey intentions of the writer, making them very unsafe especially in big projects.
In Object Oriented Design it is popular to create abstract interface classes (all members are virtual and not implemented) and make pointers to such classes and then instantiate various possible implementation depending on the usage.
However, nowadays, it is more recommended to work with templates (main advantage of C++ over other languages), as those are much faster and enable more compile-time optimization than OOD allowed. Unfortunately, working with templates is still a huge hassle - they have more complicated syntax and it is difficult to convey intentions of the writer to users about restrictions and demands of the template parameters (Concepts TS that solves this problem decently will be available in C++20 - currently there is only SFINAE, a horrible temporary solution from 20 years ago; while Reflection TS, that will greatly enhance generic programming in C++, is unlikely to be available even in C++23).
In C++11 and later, the <type_traits> header contains many classes for type checking, such as std::is_empty, std::is_polymorphic, std::is_trivially_constructible and many others.
While we use these classes just like normal classes, I cannot figure out any way to possibly write the definition of these classes. No amount of SFINAE (even with C++14/17 rules) or other method seems to be able to tell if a class is polymorphic, empty, or satisfy other properties. An class that is empty still occupies a positive amount of space as the class must have a unique address.
How then, might compilers define such classes in C++? Or perhaps it is necessary for the compiler to be intrinsically aware of these class names and parse them specially?
Back in the olden days, when people were first fooling around with type traits, they wrote some really nasty template code in attempts to write portable code to detect certain properties. My take on this was that you had to put a drip-pan under your computer to catch the molten metal as the compiler overheated trying to compile this stuff. Steve Adamczyk, of Edison Design Group (provider of industrial-strength compiler frontends), had a more constructive take on the problem: instead of writing all this template code that takes enormous amounts of compiler time and often breaks them, ask me to provide a helper function.
When type traits were first formally introduced (in TR1, 2006), there were several traits that nobody knew how to implement portably. Since TR1 was supposed to be exclusively library additions, these couldn't count on compiler help, so their specifications allowed them to get an answer that was occasionally wrong, but they could be implemented in portable code.
Nowadays, those allowances have been removed; the library has to get the right answer. The compiler help for doing this isn't special knowledge of particular templates; it's a function call that tells you whether a particular class has a particular property. The compiler can recognize the name of the function, and provide an appropriate answer. This provides a lower-level toolkit that the traits templates can use, individually or in combination, to decide whether the class has the trait in question.
I find this atrocious:
std::numeric_limits<int>::max()
And really wish I could just write this:
int::max
Yes, there is INT_MAX and friends. But sometimes you are dealing with something like streamsize, which is a synonym for an unspecified built-in, so you don't know whether you should use INT_MAX or LONG_MAX or whatever. Is there a technical limitation that prevents something like int::max from being put into the language? Or is it just that nobody but me is interested in it?
Primitive types are not class types, so they don't have static members, that's it.
If you make them class types, you are changing the foundations of the language (although thinking about it it wouldn't be such a problem for compatibility reasons, more like some headaches for the standard guys to figure out exactly what members to add to them).
But more importantly, I think that nobody but you is interested in it :) ; personally I don't find numeric_limits so atrocious (actually, it's quite C++-ish - although many can argue that often what is C++-ish looks atrocious :P ).
All in all, I'd say that this is the usual "every feature starts with minus 100 points" point; the article talks about C#, but it's even more relevant for C++, that has already tons of language features and subtleties, a complex standard and many compiler vendors that can put their vetoes:
One way to do that is through the concept of “minus 100 points”. Every feature starts out in the hole by 100 points, which means that it has to have a significant net positive effect on the overall package for it to make it into the language. Some features are okay features for a language to have, they just aren't quite good enough to make it into the language.
Even if the proposal were carefully prepared by someone else, it would still take time for the standard committee to examine and discuss it, and it would probably be rejected because it would be a duplication of stuff that is already possible without problems.
There are actually multiple issues:
built-in types aren't classes in C++
classes can't be extended with new members in C++
assuming the implementation were required to supply certain "members": which? There are lots of other attributes you might want to find for type and using traits allows for them being added.
That said, if you feel you want shorter notation for this, just create it:
namespace traits {
template <typename T> constexpr T max() {
return std::numeric_limits<T>::max();
}
}
int m = traits::max<int>();
using namespace traits;
int n = max<int>();
Why don't you use std::numeric_limits<streamsize>::max()? As for why it's a function (max()) instead of a constant (max), I don't know. In my own app I made my own num_traits type that provides the maximum value as a static constant instead of a function, (and provides significantly more information than numeric_limits).
It would be nice if they had defined some constants and functions on "int" itself, the way C# has int.MaxValue, int.MaxValue and int.Parse(string), but that's just not what the C++ committee decided.
OK, so I have this tiny little corner of my code where I'd like my function return either of (int, double, CString) to clean up the code a bit.
So I think: No problem to write a little union-like wrapper struct with three members etc. But wait! Haven't I read of boost::variant? Wouldn't this be exactly what I need? This would save me from messing around with a wrapper struct myself! (Note that I already have the boost library available in my project.)
So I fire up my browser, navigate to Chapter 28. Boost.Variant and lo and behold:
The variant class template is a safe, generic, stack-based discriminated union container, offering a simple solution for manipulating an object from a heterogeneous set of types [...]
Great! Exactly what I need!
But then it goes on:
Boost.Variant vs. Boost.Any
Boost.Any makes little use of template metaprogramming techniques (avoiding potentially hard-to-read error messages and significant compile-time processor and memory demands).
[...]
Troubleshooting
"Internal heap limit reached" -- Microsoft Visual C++ -- The compiler option /ZmNNN can increase the memory allocation limit. The NNN is a scaling percentage (i.e., 100 denotes the default limit). (Try /Zm200.)
[...]
Uh oh. So using boost::variant may significantly increase compile-time and generate hard-to-read error messages. What if someone moves my use of boost::variant to a common header, will our project suddenly take lots longer to compile? Am I introducing an (unnecessarily) complex type?
Should I use boost::variant for my simple tiny problem?
Generally, use boost::variant if you do want a discriminated union (any is for unknown types -- think of it as some kind of equivalent to how void* is used in C).
Some advantages include exception handling, potential usage of less space than the sum of the type sizes, type discriminated "visiting". Basically, stuff you'd want to perform on the discriminated union.
However, for boost::variant to be efficient, at least one of the types used must be "easily" constructed (read the documentation for more details on what "easily" means).
Boost.variant is not that complex, IMHO. Yes, it is template based, but it doesn't use any really complex feature of C++. I've used quite a bit and no problem at all. I think in your case it would help better describing what your code is doing.
Another way of thinking is transforming what that function returns into a more semantically rich structure/class that allows interpreting which inner element is interesting, but that depends on your design.
This kind of boost element comes from functional programming, where you have variants around every corner.
It should be a way to have a type-safe approach to returning a kind of value that can be of many precise types. This means that is useful to solve your problem BUT you should consider if it's really what you need to do.
The added value compared to other approaches that tries to solve the same problem should be the type-safety (you won't be able to place whatever you want inside a variant without noticing, in opposition to a void*)
I don't use it because, to me, it's a symptom of bad design.
Either your method should return an object that implements a determinated interface or it should be split in more than one method. Design should be reviewed, anyway.
I have read that C++ is super-set of C and provide a real-time implementation by creating objects. Also C++ is closed to real world as it is enriched with Object Oriented concepts.
What all concepts are there in C++ that can not be implemented in C?
Some say that we can not over write methods in C then how can we have different flavors of printf()?
For example printf("sachin"); will print sachin and printf("%d, %s",count ,name); will print 1,sachin assuming count is an integer whose value is 1 and name is a character array initililsed with "sachin".
Some say data abstraction is achieved in C++, so what about structures?
Some responders here argues that most things that can be produced with C++ code can also be produced with C with enough ambition. This is true in some parts, but some things are inherently impossible to achieve unless you modify the C compiler to deviate from the standard.
Fakeable:
Inheritance (pointer to parent-struct in the child-struct)
Polymorphism (Faking vtable by using a group of function pointers)
Data encapsulation (opaque sub structures with an implementation not exposed in public interface)
Impossible:
Templates (which might as well be called preprocessor step 2)
Function/method overloading by arguments (some try to emulate this with ellipses, but never really comes close)
RAII (Constructors and destructors are automatically invoked in C++, so your stack resources are safely handled within their scope)
Complex cast operators (in C you can cast almost anything)
Exceptions
Worth checking out:
GLib (a C library) has a rather elaborate OO emulation
I posted a question once about what people miss the most when using C instead of C++.
Clarification on RAII:
This concept is usually misinterpreted when it comes to its most important aspect - implicit resource management, i.e. the concept of guaranteeing (usually on language level) that resources are handled properly. Some believes that achieving RAII can be done by leaving this responsibility to the programmer (e.g. explicit destructor calls at goto labels), which unfortunately doesn't come close to providing the safety principles of RAII as a design concept.
A quote from a wikipedia article which clarifies this aspect of RAII:
"Resources therefore need to be tied to the lifespan of suitable objects. They are acquired during initialization, when there is no chance of them being used before they are available, and released with the destruction of the same objects, which is guaranteed to take place even in case of errors."
How about RAII and templates.
It is less about what features can't be implemented, and more about what features are directly supported in the language, and therefore allow clear and succinct expression of the design.
Sure you can implement, simulate, fake, or emulate most C++ features in C, but the resulting code will likely be less readable, or maintainable. Language support for OOP features allows code based on an Object Oriented Design to be expressed far more easily than the same design in a non-OOP language. If C were your language of choice, then often OOD may not be the best design methodology to use - or at least extensive use of advanced OOD idioms may not be advisable.
Of course if you have no design, then you are likely to end up with a mess in any language! ;)
Well, if you aren't going to implement a C++ compiler using C, there are thousands of things you can do with C++, but not with C. To name just a few:
C++ has classes. Classes have constructors and destructors which call code automatically when the object is initialized or descrtucted (going out of scope or with delete keyword).
Classes define an hierarchy. You can extend a class. (Inheritance)
C++ supports polymorphism. This means that you can define virtual methods. The compiler will choose which method to call based on the type of the object.
C++ supports Run Time Information.
You can use exceptions with C++.
Although you can emulate most of the above in C, you need to rely on conventions and do the work manually, whereas the C++ compiler does the job for you.
There is only one printf() in the C standard library. Other varieties are implemented by changing the name, for instance sprintf(), fprintf() and so on.
Structures can't hide implementation, there is no private data in C. Of course you can hide data by not showing what e.g. pointers point to, as is done for FILE * by the standard library. So there is data abstraction, but not as a direct feature of the struct construct.
Also, you can't overload operators in C, so a + b always means that some kind of addition is taking place. In C++, depending on the type of the objects involved, anything could happen.
Note that this implies (subtly) that + in C actually is overridden; int + int is not the same code as float + int for instance. But you can't do that kind of override yourself, it's something for the compiler only.
You can implement C++ fully in C... The original C++ compiler from AT+T was infact a preprocessor called CFront which just translated C++ code into C and compiled that.
This approach is still used today by comeau computing who produce one of the most C++ standards compliant compilers there is, eg. It supports all of C++ features.
namespace
All the rest is "easily" faked :)
printf is using a variable length arguments list, not an overloaded version of the function
C structures do not have constructors and are unable to inherit from other structures they are simply a convenient way to address grouped variables
C is not an OO langaueage and has none of the features of an OO language
having said that your are able to imitate C++ functionality with C code but, with C++ the compiler will do all the work for you in compile time
What all concepts are there in C++
that can not be implemented in C?
This is somewhat of an odd question, because really any concept that can be expressed in C++ can be expressed in C. Even functionality similar to C++ templates can be implemented in C using various horrifying macro tricks and other crimes against humanity.
The real difference comes down to 2 things: what the compiler will agree to enforce, and what syntactic conveniences the language offers.
Regarding compiler enforcement, in C++ the compiler will not allow you to directly access private data members from outside of a class or friends of the class. In C, the compiler won't enforce this; you'll have to rely on API documentation to separate "private" data from "publicly accessible" data.
And regarding syntactic convenience, C++ offers all sorts of conveniences not found in C, such as operator overloading, references, automated object initialization and destruction (in the form of constructors/destructors), exceptions and automated stack-unwinding, built-in support for polymorphism, etc.
So basically, any concept expressed in C++ can be expressed in C; it's simply a matter of how far the compiler will go to help you express a certain concept and how much syntactic convenience the compiler offers. Since C++ is a newer language, it comes with a lot more bells and whistles than you would find in C, thus making the expression of certain concepts easier.
One feature that isn't really OOP-related is default arguments, which can be a real keystroke-saver when used correctly.
Function overloading
I suppose there are so many things namespaces, templates that could not be implemented in C.
There shouldn't be too much such things, because early C++ compilers did produce C source code from C++ source code. Basically you can do everything in Assembler - but don't WANT to do this.
Quoting Joel, I'd say a powerful "feature" of C++ is operator overloading. That for me means having a language that will drive you insane unless you maintain your own code. For example,
i = j * 5;
… in C you know, at least, that j is
being multiplied by five and the
results stored in i.
But if you see that same snippet of
code in C++, you don’t know anything.
Nothing. The only way to know what’s
really happening in C++ is to find out
what types i and j are, something
which might be declared somewhere
altogether else. That’s because j
might be of a type that has operator*
overloaded and it does something
terribly witty when you try to
multiply it. And i might be of a type
that has operator= overloaded, and the
types might not be compatible so an
automatic type coercion function might
end up being called. And the only way
to find out is not only to check the
type of the variables, but to find the
code that implements that type, and
God help you if there’s inheritance
somewhere, because now you have to
traipse all the way up the class
hierarchy all by yourself trying to
find where that code really is, and if
there’s polymorphism somewhere, you’re
really in trouble because it’s not
enough to know what type i and j are
declared, you have to know what type
they are right now, which might
involve inspecting an arbitrary amount
of code and you can never really be
sure if you’ve looked everywhere
thanks to the halting problem (phew!).
When you see i=j*5 in C++ you are
really on your own, bubby, and that,
in my mind, reduces the ability to
detect possible problems just by
looking at code.
But again, this is a feature. (I know I will be modded down, but at the time of writing only a handful of posts talked about downsides of operator overloading)