I'm writing an embedded application, and the environment I use does not, unfortunately, have C++11 support at present.
I need to implement a hash/unordered map (a regular std::map won't do for performance reasons), but can't seem to find a way to do it cleanly.
Boost doesn't want to work without bringing in practically the whole library. Even the original STL hash_map from SGI wants several headers, and duplicates standard library functionality, causing ambiguous function calls. It's a real mess.
For ease of implementation, versioning, quality control, V&V, etc. I really need something that leverages the existing standard library and exists in only a few header files that I can put right in the same folder as all the other source/header files. Does such a thing exist, or am I without hope? I've searched for a long while, but have come up empty-handed.
Thanks very much for any help. I can certainly clarify further if necessary.
Did you look at the GNU implementation? On my Ubuntu Machine, unordered_map.h does not include anything. This file is located at
/usr/include/c++/4.6/bits/unordered_map.h
which is about 400 lines although the file "unordered_map" in /usr/include/c++/4.6/ has more headers but you can tweak those I guess.
I think you can find the source code for implementation from GNU.org (?) and compile it yourself?
Related
I'm developing a C++ library. It got me thinking of the ways Java and C# handle including different components of the libraries. For example, Java uses "import" to allow use of classes from other packages, while C# simply uses "using" to import entire modules.
My questions is, would it be a good idea to #include everything in the library in one massive include and then just use the using directive to import specific classes and modules? Or would this just be down right crazy?
EDIT:
Good responses so far, here are a few mitigating factors which I feel add to this idea:
1) Internal #includes are kept as normal (short and to the point)
2) The file which includes everything is optionally supplied with the library to those who wish to use it3) You could optionally make the big include file part of the pre-compiled header
You're confusing the purpose of #include statements in C++. They do not behave like import statements in Java or using statements in C#. #include does what it says; namely, loads and parses the entire indicated file as part of the current translation unit. The reason for the separate includes is to not have to spend compilation time parsing the entire standard library in every file. In contrast, the statements you're trying to make #include behave like are merely for programmer organization purposes.
#include is for management of the compilation process; not for separating uses. (In fact, you cannot use seperate headers to enforce seperate uses because to do so would violate the one definition rule)
tl;dr -> No, you shouldn't do that. #include as little as possible. When your project becomes large, you'll thank yourself when you're not waiting many hours to compile your project.
I would personally recommend only including the headers when you need them to explicitly show which functionalities your file requires. At the same time, doing so will prevent you from gaining access to functionalities you might no necessarily want, e.g functions unrelated to the goal of the file. Sure, this is no big deal, but I think that it's easier to maintain and change code when you don't have access to unnecessary functions/classes; it just makes it more straightforward.
I might be downvoted for this, but I think you bring up an interesting idea. It would probably slow down compilation a bit, but I think the concept is neat.
As long as you used using sparingly — only for the namespaces you need — other developers would be able to get an idea of what classes were used in a file by glancing at the top. It wouldn't be as granular as seeing a list of #included files, but is seeing a list of included header files really very useful? I don't think so.
Just make sure that all of the header files all use inclusion guards, of course. :)
As said by #Billy ONeal, the main thing is that #include is a preprocessor directive that causes a "^C, ^V" (copy-paste) of code that leads to a compile time increase.
The best considered policy in C++ is to forward declare all possible classes in ".h" files and just include them in the ".cpp" file. It isolates dependencies, as a C/C++ project will be cascadingly rebuilt if a dependent include file is changed.
Of course M$ compilers and its precompiled headers tend to do the opposite, enclosing to what you suggest. But anyone that tried to port code across those compilers is well aware of how smelly it can go.
Some libraries like Qt make extensive use of forward declarations. Take a look on it to see if you like its taste.
I think it will be confusing. When you write C++ you should avoid making it look like Java or C# (or C :-). I for one would really wonder why you did that.
Supplying an include-all file isn't really that helpful either, as a user could easily create one herself, with the parts of the library actually used. Could then be added to a precompiled header, if one is used.
Is it possible to find in the net the full implementation of the STL Set, particularly I'm interested in the iterator?
Under Visual Studio, an easy way is to right click on a #include <set> and "Open Document" : the IDE will search the include paths for you and open up the file regardless of your installation directory
The sources for libstdc++ are available and can be easily browsed online (as a matter of fact, I'm often referring to this site as a documentation) : the code for set can be found here.
If you have a C++ compiler you should be able to look in the <set> header file.
You can also browse the SGI STL online here: http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/set.
If you are having a hard time locating the implementation of set, then you will probably find it very difficult to understand what you are reading when you eventually do find it. The STL is well known for being one of the hardest bits of C++ code to understand, and this is especially true of the more complex container classes it provides (std::find is actually pretty easy, by comparison).
Instead, it might be an easier task to look at some example code written for use by normal humans, instead of the inscrutable code found in the most common STL implementations. This looks promising, and compares pretty well with what std::set actually really does.
I wish to send some components to my customers. The reasons I want to deliver source code are:
1) My class is templatized. Customer might use any template argument, so I can't pre-compile and send .o file.
2) The customer might use different compiler versions for gcc than mine. So I want him to do compilation at his end.
Now, I can't reveal my source code for obvious reasons. The max I can do is to reveal the .h file. Any ideas how I may achieve this. I am thinking about some hooks in gcc that supports decryption before compilation, etc. Is this possible?
In short, I want him to be able to compile this code without being able to peek inside.
Contract = good, obfuscation = ungood.
That said, you can always do a kind of PIMPL idiom to serve your customer with binaries and just templated wrappers in the header(s). The idea is then to use an "untyped" separately compiled implementation, where the templated wrapper just provides type safety for client code. That's how one often did things before compilers started to understand how to optimize templates, that is, to avoid machine-code level code bloat, but it only provides some measure of protection about trivial copy-and-paste theft, not any protection against someone willing to delve into the machine code.
But perhaps the effort is then greater than just reinventing your functionality?
Just adding some terminology to Alf's answer: The Thin template idiom is what you might look at. It basically simulates the functionality of a generic. Don't get confused by the wikipedia article which pops up in google, you don't have to use void*...
This, of course, does not guarantee binary compatibility. As usual with 'native' c++, you either compile the component for customers platform yourself and deploy the binary, or give them your code... The difference to the pure generic component code is that you can do the former at all.
use some c++ obfuscators may be help?: http://www.semdesigns.com/products/obfuscators/CppObfuscationExample.html or Magle It
First, if you're going to provide the source code, then you have to provide the source code. Sure, you could encrypt it, but even if GCC had a "decrypt before compile" option, it would need to decrypt the code, and if GCC can decrypt the code, so can your customer.
What you're asking is impossible. (If you find a way to do it, I believe the movie industry might have a multi-million contract for you. They currently have to resort to expensive custom hardware to prevent people from ripping content, and that only works to a limited degree)
As for your "obvious reasons" why you don't want to provide the source code, I don't see why they're obvious. What would happen if you provided the source code?
You have two options:
provide the source code in its entirety, or
compile everything that can be precompiled into a (static or dynamic) library, and provide your customer with that, plus the header files.
what about pimpls?
1) My class is templatized. Customer might use any template argument, so I can't pre-compile and send .o file.
2) The customer might use different compiler versions for gcc than mine. So I want him to do compilation at his end.
Now, I can't reveal my source code for obvious reasons. The max I can do is to reveal the .h file. Any ideas how I may achieve this. I am thinking about some hooks in gcc that supports decryption before compilation, etc. Is this possible?
In short, I want him to be able to compile this code without being able to peek inside.
Consideration 2) above encompasses A) ABI differences such that the same code compiled with different compiler versions/vendors on the same platform is incompatible, as well as B) the differences in system libraries, kernel versions etc. that the code might be dependent on. The only general solution is to compile on the specific platforms. Either you do it for all platforms, or you give them all the source code and they do it. That's not just the headers and template implementation, that's your out-of-line functions too. You might mitigate A) a little by building a wall of more interoperable extern "C" functions, but you're basically stuck when it comes to B).
So, can you decrypt during compilation? Only if you ship your own hacked GCC binaries to them, built for their specific system, which is probably more hassle than providing different builds of your own libraries (though it may address the template/header exposure issue).
Alternatively, you could employ source code obfuscation techniques. This is probably - practically - as good as it gets. I don't know what tools are out there, but it's an approach that people have pursued for decades (though I'm yet to hear anyone recommend it), so there's sure to be some mature tools.
Re templated code - other people have suggested a templated front end to a C-style generic implementation shipped as a precompiled object. That may or may not be practical (clearly risks performance degradation, and you have to capture the set of type-specific operations you want - e.g. by instantiating a type-specific class derived from an abstract operations base class) but anyway the precompiled object still runs afoul of B).
One other thought... clients might take your source code, but are unlikely to understand it as well as you. Even if they build more systems dependent on their version of it, in a way they're getting more locked in, and may have more need for your services in future. And, if you see they've not played fair, you charge them for it appropriately when the time comes.
It seems with gcc 4.5 comes the support for plugins. So you can provide your own .so which would be, for instance, called before compilation stage starts. So you can have all kinds of tricks(decryption of source file) in there, neatly hidden. This would also be portable solution as no change is made to g++ per se.
This is exactly what I was looking for. You can read more here:
http://www.codesynthesis.com/~boris/blog/2010/05/03/parsing-cxx-with-gcc-plugin-part-1/
In my project I use two libraries, v8 and boost. Boost uses the .hpp extension for its headers, while v8 uses the .h extension for its headers.
In the end of day, my source code starts like that:
#include "v8.h"
#include "boost/filesystem.hpp"
...
In other question I asked about this subject, the general answer was that it is okay, but I just should be consistent between names.
This code compiles well, but, coding styles/standards - is it okay? Is there any solution for this problem (like changing all .hpp to .h automatically somehow?)
Thanks. And sorry for those stupid questions.
Don't worry about the inconsistency, it doesn't matter. Too much time is often spent obsessing about such details, and everyone is guilty of it.
Just be consistent with your own coding standards.
You'll eventually use some 3rd party library or several that use different conventions than you. There's nothing you can do about it, and often 2 of those libraries you use will be conflicting with your standards and with each other. That's not only for include extensions, but also for naming convetions like function_that_does_something vs FunctionThatDoesSomthing .It's fine.
I would definitely strongly advice against trying to change someone else's library to fit into your coding standard. I.e. for example renaming boost .hpp to .h. This is a bad idea and when you want to upgrade to newer versions of the library it will be a nightmare.
Spend your time solving the problem you're solving in a more elegant way rather than worrying about details like this.
It's fine. Coding standards don't really come into it since you have to go with what you're given. If the v8 people only provide .h and the boost people only provide .hpp then, short of copying one set of files to the other choice or providing your own wrapper header files, you have few options.
Both of those option have their downsides for what is really dubious benefits, so I wouldn't concern yourself with the fact that you have to include two different file extensions.
Boost rocks, it is great and extremely powerful, but I hate it everytime I build solution in my Visual Studio 7.1.
It seems Boost has impact on build time (not positive). I cannot remove all Boost usage from my project to compare build times but I tried it on small projects and the difference is meaningful.
I guess the problem is that Boost consists of thousands of header files which include themselves very extensively. So, when I include, say, boost/function.hpp into my header file, it may lead to including hundred of Boost headers.
Is there someone who experienced the same? Any ideas how to solve it?
Rough thoughts:
Add boost to precompiled headers? At least they will be parsed and kept in one file
Do explicit instantination for some Boost templates?
Prepare Boost headers somehow?
Do not include Boost to header files (sounds unreal)
...
PS. Yep, Boost also uses hardcore templating that pretty hard to compiler I guess, so thousands of header files are not the only problem.
I like also boost a lot
Use the precompiled header like you told (that brings most)
When using linked libraries check if you really need them (linking is also quite slow)
Another maybe stupid hint, but was the main source of performance loss on my computer:
check if your antivirus makes an on-access-scan and disable it for the header & source directories (boost and your projects)
Naturally, including boost leads to longer compilations times - just like including any library does. Being (mostly) a template library offcourse leads to quite big performance penalty as all of the logic is implemented in the headers.
I've had good results including (a subset of) boost in precompiled headers. However, I belive that the gain is greatest with MSVC 9. On MSVC 7 I have seen several reports saying that precompiled headers of templates frequently leads to performance penalty. Another crucial aspect determining if you'll see performance gain is to include the appropiate headers in the precompiled header. Only include headers you frequently use, and make sure they are never changed (that is, think three times before including your own headers here)
I do not know if explicit instantination has any effect, even though I doubt it. If anyone has seen any results on this (regardless compiler), it would be very interesting.
"Preparing" boost headers sounds like altering them which sounds like a very bad idea to me. You don't want to end up maintaining customized headers...
May not be so unreal as you might think. Always use as many forward declarations as possible to reduce the "footprint" of each header file. Consider using the Pimpl pattern to avoid including boost headers that are not reflected in the public interface of your class (offtopic: I consider Pimpl to often be unnecessary. Instead I try to slice the classes into smaller pieces, acheiving the same result in a "cleaner" fashion). Don't be afraid to include general, common classes (e.g. shared_ptr) as long as you're consistent in the usage of these classes (if your using them in all your classes you wont see much gain in hiding them away from one header).
Upgrading MSVC (to support parallel builds) will help. However, this is always an issue in C++. To minimize the problem, you need to be very strict and follow guidelines to reduce the footprint of your headers. Now and then you should look through the include-clauses and make sure there are nothing unnecessary included. If you're list of includes done in the header is getting long you're probably doing something wrong - most includes should only be in the cpp.
Including Boost header files only when they are really necessary makes sense. Headers including other headers cause stress to IO and has great impact to compile time. Forward declaration helps to some point, but with Boost it can be real pain.
Using external guards in header files avoids unnecessary loading. Like this:
#ifndef BOOST_SHARED_PTR_HPP_INCLUDED
# include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#endif
Another way to avoid header cascade is to use "pimpl"-idiom, especially when dealing with complex classes. Then complex Boost stuff can be included and used only by that compilation unit. Downside is that interface should be designed so that no Boost specific stuff is required. However, breaking depencies might be a good thing too.
As you mentioned in your post, the boost code contains a lot of template code that require a lot of CPU cycles for compilation. The overhead from multiple header files is very small compared to that.
The first thing you need to do is find out which header file or which line of code is responsible for the delay in compilation. Often it is not the inclusion of the header file, but the usage of one of its classes/functions in your own code that is causing the delay. You can isolate the responsible code by commenting out pieces of your code until compilation is fast again, and then uncommenting your pieces of code until compilation is slow again. Then you can decide whether you want to replace the slow code with something else or not. It's up to you to weigh the pros and cons here or compilation speed vs nifty boost code.
There are a few other things you can do as well:
clean up unneeded include statements, esp in your headers
in your header files, replace includes with forward declarations (where possible)
get a faster computer :D