I have the following template function:
template <std::size_t first, std::size_t last, typename T>
bool in_range(T& in)
{
for(auto i = in.begin(); i!=in.end(); ++i)
if(*i<first || *i>last)
return false;
return true;
}
but when I try to use it as such:
std::vector<int> test;
test.push_back(1);
test.push_back(5);
test.push_back(6);
std::cout<<in_range<4,7>(test);
I get this weird error:
main.cpp: In instantiation of 'bool in_range(T&) [with long long unsigned int first = 4ull; long long unsigned int last = 7ull; T = std::vector<int>]':
main.cpp:31:34: required from here
What am I doing wrong?
EDIT: full build log: http://pastebin.com/Cwemq2Hk
If I build that with C++11 support enabled, then it compiles. Here is a demonstation.
Before C++11, auto had a different meaning, and so auto i = ... was invalid - it declared a variable with no type.
I guess you're using GCC; depending on the version, you'll need to specify either -std=c++0x or -std=c++11 as a command-line option.
Related
In C++, I'm trying to write something similar to boost-mp11's mp_for_each. However, whilst mp_for_each always calls the supplied function for every T in the given mp_list<Ts...>, I'm trying to come up with a solution that stops traversal once a run-time call to the function yields a value evaluating to false in an if-statement.
See the implementation of mp_for_each and a usage example:
Implementation on GitHub
Usage example in Boost reference manual
Apparently, the implementation of mp_for_each manages to pass the function argument as a constant expression, thus enabling the user to apply it where a constant expression is required. Whilst I took a different approach incorporating template tail recursion, I expected the function argument to be passed as a constant expression as welll. However, GCC complains that it "is not a constant expression".
My code looks like this:
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
#include <utility>
#include <boost/mp11.hpp>
template<std::size_t T_counter>
struct WhileGreaterZero
{
template<typename T_Function>
constexpr WhileGreaterZero(T_Function&& function)
{
if (function(T_counter)) // pass function argument
WhileGreaterZero<T_counter - 1>(std::forward<T_Function>(function));
}
};
template<>
struct WhileGreaterZero<0>
{
template<typename T_Function>
constexpr WhileGreaterZero(T_Function&&) {}
};
int main()
{
using boost::mp11::mp_at_c;
using boost::mp11::mp_list;
using boost::mp11::mp_size;
using Types = mp_list<bool, int, double>;
WhileGreaterZero<mp_size<Types>::value - 1>(
[](auto counter) { // function parameter
using Type = mp_at_c<Types, counter>;
if (typeid(Type) == typeid(int))
return false;
return true;
}
);
}
When compiling with g++ 7.4.0, the following error is encountered (formatted to my taste):
$ g++ -std=c++17 -I/path/to/boost
wgz.cpp:
In substitution of ‘
template<
class L,
long unsigned int I
>
using mp_at_c =
typename boost::mp11::detail::mp_if_c_impl<
(I < typename boost::mp11::detail::mp_size_impl<L>::type:: value),
boost::mp11::detail::mp_at_c_impl<L, I>,
void
>::type::type
[
with L = boost::mp11::mp_list<bool, int, double>;
long unsigned int I = counter
]
’:
wgz.cpp:42:49:
required from ‘
main()::<lambda(auto:1)>
[with auto:1 = long unsigned int]
’
wgz.cpp:14:21:
required from ‘
constexpr WhileGreaterZero<T_counter>::WhileGreaterZero(T_Function&&)
[
with T_Function = main()::<lambda(auto:1)>;
long unsigned int T_counter = 2
]
’
wgz.cpp:49:5:
required from here
wgz.cpp:42:49:
error: ‘counter’ is not a constant expression
using Type = mp_at_c<Types, counter>;
^
wgz:42:49:
note: in template argument for type ‘long unsigned int’
Why is counter not considered as a constant expression in my code?
What's the crucial difference between mp11's code and mine in this regard?
Change
function(T_counter)
to
function(std::integral_constant< std::size_t, T_counter >{})
within function the argument is not a compile time value. But an integral_constant that isn't a compile time value can be cast to an integer, and that integer is a compile time constant, because it doesn't depend on this.
A related trick is:
template<std::size_t...Is>
constexpr auto indexes( std::index_sequence<Is...> ={} ) {
return std::make_tuple( std::integral_constant<std::size_t, Is>{}... );
}
then you can do:
template<std::size_t N, class F>
void While( F&& f ) {
std::apply( [&](auto...Is) {
(f( Is ) && ...);
}, indexes( std::make_index_sequence<N>{} ) );
}
Live example, no recursion.
Parameter of lambda is a parameter of function, its value is not passed at compile-time.
At very least this line is ill-formed:
using Type = mp_at_c<Types, counter>;
You have to wait for template lambdas or implement your own functor
The code below compiles on MSVC but fails on GCC (4.6.3). Why does it fail and what should I do to fix it?
#include <array>
class Foo {
public:
template<typename T, int N>
operator std::array<T, N>() const {
return std::array<T, N>();
}
};
int main(){
Foo val;
// both of the following lines fail on GCC with error:
// "no matching function call...", ultimately with a note:
// "template argument deduction/substitution failed"
auto a = val.operator std::array<int, 2>();
static_cast<std::array<int, 2>>(val);
return 0;
}
EDIT: The following code, however, does compile (on both compilers), despite passing in an int for std::array's template parameter.
template<int N, typename T>
struct Bar {
std::array<T, N> buf;
};
int main()
{
auto x = Bar<3, double>();
return 0;
}
If you read the full text of the error messages you get, the compiler is complaining because the type for N in your template class is int, while the second parameter of std::array is std::size_t, which is an unsigned long on your system.
Changing your template's declaration to use std::size_t N will fix the problem.
MSVC is not complaining possibly because it recognizes that the value "2" works for either case, or because of a compiler bug.
The code below compiles correctly on clang 3.8.1-1 on ArchLinux.
Is this clang bug?
gcc issue correct warning/error on this.
template <class T>
struct BugReproducer{
using size_type = typename T::size_type;
int bug1(size_type count);
int bug2(size_type count) const;
static int bug3(size_type count);
};
template <class T>
int BugReproducer<T>::bug1(size_type const count){
// this is a bug. must be not allowed
count = 5;
// return is to use the result...
return count;
}
template <class T>
int BugReproducer<T>::bug2(size_type const count) const{
// same for const method
count = 5;
return count;
}
template <class T>
int BugReproducer<T>::bug3(size_type const count){
// same for static method
count = 5;
return count;
}
struct DummyVector{
using size_type = int;
};
int main(){
using BugRepr = BugReproducer<DummyVector>;
BugRepr reproducer;
auto a = reproducer.bug1(1);
auto b = reproducer.bug2(1);
auto c = BugRepr::bug3(1);
// return is to use the result...
return a + b + c;
}
Here how I compile:
[nmmm#zenbook HM3]$ clang x.cc -std=c++11 -lstdc++ -Wall -Wpedantic -Wconversion
clang and c++14 - same result.
[nmmm#zenbook HM3]$ clang x.cc -std=c++14 -lstdc++ -Wall -Wpedantic -Wconversion
Here is gcc output:
[nmmm#zenbook HM3]$ gcc x.cc -std=c++11 -lstdc++ -Wall -Wpedantic -Wconversion
x.cc: In instantiation of ‘int BugReproducer<T>::bug1(BugReproducer<T>::size_type) [with T = DummyVector; BugReproducer<T>::size_type = int]’:
x.cc:46:28: required from here
x.cc:13:8: error: assignment of read-only parameter ‘count’
count = 5;
~~~~~~^~~
x.cc: In instantiation of ‘int BugReproducer<T>::bug2(BugReproducer<T>::size_type) const [with T = DummyVector; BugReproducer<T>::size_type = int]’:
x.cc:47:28: required from here
x.cc:22:8: error: assignment of read-only parameter ‘count’
count = 5;
~~~~~~^~~
x.cc: In instantiation of ‘static int BugReproducer<T>::bug3(BugReproducer<T>::size_type) [with T = DummyVector; BugReproducer<T>::size_type = int]’:
x.cc:48:20: required from here
x.cc:29:8: error: assignment of read-only parameter ‘count’
count = 5;
~~~~~~^~~
Yes, this is a bug in clang; filed at https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30365.
The nature of the bug is that in a class template member function definition appearing outside ([class.mfct]/1) the class template, with the type of a parameter dependent on the class template parameters, clang uses the parameter type of the declaration rather than the parameter type of the definition where they differ in topmost cv-qualification. Simplified example:
template<class T> struct A { void f(typename T::U); };
template<class T> void A<T>::f(typename T::U const i) { i = 1; }
struct X { using U = int; };
int main() { A<X>{}.f(0); }
Per [dcl.fct]/5 the type of i within the definition of A<X>::f is int const (Use of 'const' for function parameters):
5 - [...] After producing the list of parameter types, any top-level cv-qualifiers modifying a parameter
type are deleted when forming the function type. [...]
[ Note: This transformation does not affect the types of the parameters. [...] — end note ]
Here's a sample program:
#include <type_traits>
#include <stdio.h>
template <typename X>
struct test
{
operator int() const { puts("?"); return 0; }
template <typename T, typename = typename std::enable_if<std::is_same<X, void*>::value, T>::type>
operator T() const { puts("T"); return 0; }
};
int main()
{
test<void*> t;
char* c = (char*)t;
switch (t)
{
case 0: break;
}
return 0;
}
And this is the error that g++-4.7 gives
user#user:~$ g++-4.7 -std=c++0x test.cpp
test.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
test.cpp:13:14: error: ambiguous default typeconversion from ‘test<void*>’
test.cpp:13:14: error: candidate conversions include ‘template<class T, class> test::operator void*() const [with T = T; <template-parameter-2-2> = <template-parameter-1-2>; X = void*]’
g++ 4.6 compiles it without errors and different operators are actually called.
Is there a way to make this work under g++ 4.7?
UPDATE: actually it works in 4.6 without any enable_if at all... so the question still applies but I'm now not sure if enable_if will help.
If you add an explicit cast to int here:
switch ((int)t)
Then it should compile.
I think it's complaining about the conversion being ambiguous since there exists more than one type that can hold a 0 value.
I'm using g++ 4.8 though.
I found at least one "acceptable" solution:
#define switch(x) \
switch( (typename switch_type<__typeof(x)>::type)(x) )
which switch_type trait can be extended to resolve ambiguity for specific app-related types (property types).
I encountered a problem when using constexpr functions together with lambdas.
The following code is a minimal version which reproduces the error:
#include <iostream>
constexpr unsigned bar(unsigned q) {
return q;
}
template<unsigned N>
unsigned foo() {
return N;
}
template<typename F>
void print(F f) {
std::cout << f() << std::endl;
}
template<unsigned Q>
int stuff() {
constexpr unsigned n = bar(Q);
print([]() { return foo<n>(); });
}
int main() {
stuff<13>();
}
When compiling with gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) there are the following compiler errors:
constexpr_template.cpp: In lambda function:
constexpr_template.cpp:24:9: instantiated from ‘stuff() [with unsigned int Q = 13u]::<lambda()>’
constexpr_template.cpp:24:2: instantiated from ‘int stuff() [with unsigned int Q = 13u]’
constexpr_template.cpp:29:12: instantiated from here
constexpr_template.cpp:24:32: error: no matching function for call to ‘foo()’
constexpr_template.cpp:24:32: note: candidate is:
constexpr_template.cpp:9:10: note: template<unsigned int N> unsigned int foo()
Now the strange part is, if constexpr unsigned n = bar(Q); is changed into constexpr unsigned n = Q; it works.
What is also working is print([]() { return foo<bar(Q)>(); });...
Is this a bug in GCC or what am I doing wrong?
Gcc 4.6 was the first version to support constexpr, and it is not unusual for minor bugs to be present upon release of such features. You can verify from this Live Example on Coliru that gcc 4.8.1 and Clang 3.4 SVN correctly parse your code. You probably should upgrade your compiler accordingly.