I'm trying to get access to vector elements in this manner
struct point
{
unsigned int x;
unsigned int y;
};
...
thrust::device_vector<point> devPoints(hPoints.begin(), hPoints.end());
for(thrust::device_vector<point>::iterator iter = devPoints.begin(); iter != devPoints.end(); iter++)
{
std::cout << iter->x << " " << iter->y << " " << std::endl; (1)
}
device_vector was initialized properly. I get following errors:
error: expression must have pointer type (at 1)
error: no suitable user-defined conversion from "const thrust::detail::normal_iterator<thrust::device_ptr<point>>" to "thrust::device_ptr<point>" exists
detected during instantiation of "Pointer thrust::experimental::iterator_facade<Derived, Pointer, Value, Space, Traversal, Reference, Difference>::operator->() const [with Derived=thrust::detail::normal_iterator<thrust::device_ptr<point>>, Pointer=thrust::device_ptr<point>, Value=point, Space=thrust::detail::cuda_device_space_tag, Traversal=thrust::random_access_traversal_tag, Reference=thrust::device_reference<point>, Difference=ptrdiff_t]"
What am I doing wrong?
Ok this one was a bit more complicated than I expected :)
Here are the results of my investigations:
Your problem comes from thrust's implementation. Thrust uses a type called device_reference which, as its documentation says: http://wiki.thrust.googlecode.com/hg/html/classthrust_1_1device__reference.html
device_reference acts as a
reference-like object to an object
stored in device memory.
device_reference is not intended to be
used directly; rather, this type is
the result of deferencing a
device_ptr. Similarly, taking the
address of a device_reference yields a
device_ptr.
However, there are some cases when we are dealing implicitly with device_reference. For example, when a device_reference is passed as a parameter to functions waiting for POD (more or less what you are trying to do with operator<<), the following problem appears:
Another common case where a
device_reference cannot directly be
used in place of its referent object
occurs when passing them as parameters
to functions like printf which have
varargs parameters. Because varargs
parameters must be Plain Old Data, a
device_reference to a POD type requires a cast
when passed to printf:
Having said that, all you have to do is to cast your device_reference to the POD you're handling. In your case, you'd do:
for(thrust::device_vector<point>::iterator iter = devPoints.begin(); iter != devPoints.end(); iter++) {
std::cout << (static_cast<point>(*iter)).x << " " << (static_cast<point>(*iter)).y << std::endl;
}
In my opinion, this is not the most elegant solution, I'd rather use the std::copy algorithm to print the content of your point class. Thus, I've written a small example file, using your point class and printing it using three different ways:
#include <thrust/host_vector.h>
#include <thrust/device_vector.h>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
struct point
{
unsigned int x;
unsigned int y;
};
__host__
point getRandomPoint() {
point p;
p.x = rand();
p.y = rand();
return p;
}
__host__
std::ostream& operator<< (std::ostream& os, const point& p) {
os << "[ " << p.x << " ; " << p.y << " ]";
return os;
}
int main() {
// fill the host_vector with random points
thrust::host_vector<point> hPoints(512);
thrust::generate(hPoints.begin(), hPoints.end(), getRandomPoint);
// copy hPoints content to device memory
thrust::device_vector<point> devPoints(hPoints.begin(), hPoints.end());
// first way
for(thrust::device_vector<point>::iterator iter = devPoints.begin(); iter != devPoints.end(); iter++) {
std::cout << (static_cast<point>(*iter)).x << " " << (static_cast<point>(*iter)).y << std::endl;
}
// second way
for(thrust::device_vector<point>::iterator iter = devPoints.begin(); iter != devPoints.end(); iter++)
{
std::cout << *iter << std::endl;
}
// third way
std::copy(devPoints.begin(), devPoints.end(), std::ostream_iterator< point >(std::cout, " $ ") );
return 0;
}
Now, it's up to you to choose the one you prefer!
std::cout << iter->x << " " << iter->y << " " << std::endl;
^^^^
:))
Related
My question is that of safety. I've searched cplusplus.com and cppreference.com and they seem to be lacking on iterator safety during std::move. Specifically: is it safe to call std::unordered_map::erase(iterator) with an iterator whose object has been moved? Sample code:
#include <unordered_map>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
class A {
public:
A() : name("default ctored"), value(-1) {}
A(const std::string& name, int value) : name(name), value(value) { }
std::string name;
int value;
};
typedef std::shared_ptr<const A> ConstAPtr;
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
// containers keyed by shared_ptr are keyed by the raw pointer address
std::unordered_map<ConstAPtr, int> valued_objects;
for ( int i = 0; i < 10; ++i ) {
// creates 5 objects named "name 0", and 5 named "name 1"
std::string name("name ");
name += std::to_string(i % 2);
valued_objects[std::make_shared<A>(std::move(name), i)] = i * 5;
}
// Later somewhere else we need to transform the map to be keyed differently
// while retaining the values for each object
typedef std::pair<ConstAPtr, int> ObjValue;
std::unordered_map<std::string, std::vector<ObjValue> > named_objects;
std::cout << "moving..." << std::endl;
// No increment since we're using .erase() and don't want to skip objects.
for ( auto it = valued_objects.begin(); it != valued_objects.end(); ) {
std::cout << it->first->name << "\t" << it->first.value << "\t" << it->second << std::endl;
// Get named_vec.
std::vector<ObjValue>& v = named_objects[it->first->name];
// move object :: IS THIS SAFE??
v.push_back(std::move(*it));
// And then... is this also safe???
it = valued_objects.erase(it);
}
std::cout << "checking... " << named_objects.size() << std::endl;
for ( auto it = named_objects.begin(); it != named_objects.end(); ++it ) {
std::cout << it->first << " (" << it->second.size() << ")" << std::endl;
for ( auto pair : it->second ) {
std::cout << "\t" << pair.first->name << "\t" << pair.first->value << "\t" << pair.second << std::endl;
}
}
std::cout << "double check... " << valued_objects.size() << std::endl;
for ( auto it : valued_objects ) {
std::cout << it.first->name << " (" << it.second << ")" << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
The reason I ask is that it strikes me that moving the pair from the unordered_map's iterator may (?) therefore *re*move the iterator's stored key value and therefore invalidate its hash; therefore any operations on it afterward could result in undefined behavior. Unless that's not so?
I do think it's worth noting that the above appears to successfully work as intended in GCC 4.8.2 so I'm looking to see if I missed documentation supporting or explicitly not supporting the behavior.
// move object :: IS THIS SAFE??
v.push_back(std::move(*it));
Yes, it is safe, because this doesn't actually modify the key. It cannot, because the key is const. The type of *it is std::pair<const ConstAPtr, int>. When it is moved, the first member (the const ConstAPtr) is not actually moved. It is converted to an r-value by std::move, and becomes const ConstAPtr&&. But that doesn't match the move constructor, which expects a non-const ConstAPtr&&. So the copy constructor is called instead.
I'd like to simulate a std::vector that has mixed const and non-const elements. More specifically, I want to have functions that operate on a vector and are allowed to see the entire vector but may only write to specific elements. The elements that can and cannot be written will be determined at runtime and may change during runtime.
One solution is to create a container that holds an array of elements and an equal sized array of booleans. All non-const access would be through a function that checks against the boolean array if the write is valid and throws an exception otherwise. This has the downside of adding a conditional to every write.
A second solution might be to have the same container but this time write access is done by passing an array editing function to a member function of the container. The container member function would let the array editing function go at the array and then check that it didn't write to the non-writable elements. This has the downside that the array editing function could be sneaky and pass around non-const pointers to the array elements, let the container function check that all is well, and then write to non-writable elements.
The last issue seems difficult to solve. It seems like offering direct writable access ever means we have to assume direct writable access always.
Are there better solutions?
EDIT: Ben's comment has a good point I should have addressed in the question: why not a vector of const and a vector of non-const?
The issue is that the scenario I have in mind is that we have elements that are conceptually part of one single array. Their placement in that array is meaningful. To use vectors of const and non-const requires mapping the single array that exist in concept to the two vectors that would implement it. Also, if the list of writable elements changes then the elements or pointers in the two vectors would need to be moved about.
I think you can accomplish what you wish with the following class, which is very simplified to illustrate the main concept.
template <typename T>
struct Container
{
void push_back(bool isconst, T const& item)
{
data.push_back(std::make_pair(isconst, item));
}
T& at(size_t index)
{
// Check whether the object at the index is const.
if ( data[index].first )
{
throw std::runtime_error("Trying to access a const-member");
}
return data[index].second;
}
T const& at(size_t index) const
{
return data[index].second;
}
T const& at(size_t index, int dummy) // Without dummy, can't differentiate
// between the two functions.
{
return data[index].second;
}
T const& at(size_t index, int dummy) const // Without dummy, can't differentiate
// between the two functions.
{
return data[index].second;
}
std::vector<std::pair<bool, T> > data;
};
Here's a test program and its output.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <utility>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <vector>
//--------------------------------
// Put the class definition here.
//--------------------------------
int main()
{
Container<int> c;
c.push_back(true, 10);
c.push_back(false, 20);
try
{
int value = c.at(0); // Show throw exception.
}
catch (...)
{
std::cout << "Expected to see this.\n";
}
int value = c.at(0, 1); // Should work.
std::cout << "Got c[0]: " << value << "\n";
value = c.at(1); // Should work.
std::cout << "Got c[1]: " << value << "\n";
value = c.at(1, 1); // Should work.
std::cout << "Got c[1]: " << value << "\n";
// Accessing the data through a const object.
// All functions should work since they are returning
// const&.
Container<int> const& cref = c;
value = cref.at(0); // Should work.
std::cout << "Got c[0]: " << value << "\n";
value = cref.at(0, 1); // Should work.
std::cout << "Got c[0]: " << value << "\n";
value = cref.at(1); // Should work.
std::cout << "Got c[1]: " << value << "\n";
value = cref.at(1, 1); // Should work.
std::cout << "Got c[1]: " << value << "\n";
// Changing values ... should only work for '1'
try
{
c.at(0) = 100; // Show throw exception.
}
catch (...)
{
std::cout << "Expected to see this.\n";
}
c.at(1) = 200; // Should work.
std::cout << "Got c[1]: " << c.at(1) << "\n";
}
Output from running the program:
Expected to see this.
Got c[0]: 10
Got c[1]: 20
Got c[1]: 20
Got c[0]: 10
Got c[0]: 10
Got c[1]: 20
Got c[1]: 20
Expected to see this.
Got c[1]: 200
Suppose I have the following function:
void myFunc(P& first, P& last) {
std::cout << first.child.grandchild[2] << endl;
// ...
}
Now, let's assume that first.child.grandchild[2] is too long for my purposes. For example, suppose it will appear frequently in equations inside myFunc(P&,P&). So, I'd like to create some sort of symbolic reference inside the function so that my equations would be less messy. How could I do this?
In particular, consider the code below. I need to know what statement I could insert so that not only would the output from line_1a always be the same as the output from line_1b, but also so that the output from line_2a would always be the same as the output from line_2b. In other words, I don't want a copy of the value of first.child.grandchild, but a reference or symbolic link to the object first.child.grandchild.
void myFunc(P& first, P& last) {
// INSERT STATEMENT HERE TO DEFINE "g"
std::cout << first.child.grandchild[2] << endl; // line_1a
std::cout << g[2] << endl; // line_1b
g[4] = X; // where X is an in-scope object of matching type
std::cout << first.child.grandchild[4] << endl; // line_2a
std::cout << g[4] << endl; // line_2b
//...
}
Say that the type of grandchild is T and size is N; then below is the way to create a reference for an array.
void myFunc(P& first, P& last) {
T (&g)[N] = first.child.grandchild;
...
}
I would not prefer pointer here, though it's also a possible way. Because, the static size of array is helpful to a static analyzer for range checking.
If you are using C++11 compiler then auto is the best way (mentioned by #SethCarnegie already):
auto &g = first.child.grandchild;
Use a pointer - then you can change it in the function.
WhateverGrandchildIs *ptr=&first.child.grandchild[2];
std::cout << *ptr << std::endl;
ptr=&first.child.grandchild[4];
std::cout << *ptr << std::endl;
I was debugging some code involving pointers to member fields, and i decided to print them out to see their values. I had a function returning a pointer to member:
#include <stdio.h>
struct test {int x, y, z;};
typedef int test::*ptr_to_member;
ptr_to_member select(int what)
{
switch (what) {
case 0: return &test::x;
case 1: return &test::y;
case 2: return &test::z;
default: return NULL;
}
}
I tried using cout:
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << select(0) << " and " << select(3) << '\n';
}
I got 1 and 0. I thought the numbers indicated the position of the field inside the struct (that is, 1 is y and 0 is x), but no, the printed value is actually 1 for non-null pointer and 0 for null pointer. I guess this is a standard-compliant behavior (even though it's not helpful) - am i right? In addition, is it possible for a compliant c++ implementation to print always 0 for pointers-to-members? Or even an empty string?
And, finally, how can i print a pointer-to-member in a meaningful manner? I came up with two ugly ways:
printf("%d and %d\n", select(0), select(3)); // not 64-bit-compatible, i guess?
ptr_to_member temp1 = select(0); // have to declare temporary variables
ptr_to_member temp2 = select(3);
std::cout << *(int*)&temp1 << " and " << *(int*)&temp2 << '\n'; // UGLY!
Any better ways?
Pointers to members are not as simple as you may think. Their size changes from compiler to compiler and from class to class depending on whether the class has virtual methods or not and whether it has multiple inheritance or not. Assuming they are int sized is not the right way to go. What you can do is print them in hexadecimal:
void dumpByte(char i_byte)
{
std::cout << std::hex << static_cast<int>((i_byte & 0xf0) >> 4);
std::cout << std::hex << static_cast<int>(i_byte & 0x0f));
} // ()
template <typename T>
void dumpStuff(T* i_pStuff)
{
const char* pStuff = reinterpret_cast<const char*>(i_pStuff);
size_t size = sizeof(T);
while (size)
{
dumpByte(*pStuff);
++pStuff;
--size;
} // while
} // ()
However, I'm not sure how useful that information will be to you since you don't know what is the structure of the pointers and what each byte (or several bytes) mean.
Member pointers aren't ordinary pointers. The overloads you expect for << aren't in fact there.
If you don't mind some type punning, you can hack something up to print the actual values:
int main()
{
ptr_to_member a = select(0), b = select(1);
std::cout << *reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(&a) << " and "
<< *reinterpret_cast<uint32_t*>(&b) << " and "
<< sizeof(ptr_to_member) << '\n';
}
You can display the raw values of these pointer-to-members as follows:
#include <iostream>
struct test {int x, y, z;};
typedef int test::*ptr_to_member;
ptr_to_member select(int what)
{
switch (what) {
case 0: return &test::x;
case 1: return &test::y;
case 2: return &test::z;
default: return NULL;
}
}
int main()
{
ptr_to_member x = select(0) ;
ptr_to_member y = select(1) ;
ptr_to_member z = select(2) ;
std::cout << *(void**)&x << ", " << *(void**)&y << ", " << *(void**)&z << std::endl ;
}
You get warnings about breaking strict anti-aliasing rules (see this link), but the result is what you might expect:
0, 0x4, 0x8
Nevertheless, the compiler is free to implement pointer-to-member functionality however it likes, so you can't rely on these values being meaningful.
I think you should use printf to solve this problen
#include <stdio.h>
struct test{int x,y,z;}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("&test::x=%p\n", &test::x);
printf("&test::y=%p\n", &test::y);
printf("&test::z=%p\n", &test::z);
return 0;
}
I'm trying to write a copy constructor for an object managing a STL map containing pointers, where the key is a string. However, when I attempt to insert new values in the map, the pointers are set to NULL:
// ...
for(std::map<std::string, data_base*, order>::const_iterator it = other.elements.begin();
it != other.elements.end(); ++it){
data_base *t = it->second->clone();
std::cout << "CLONE: " << std::hex << t << std::endl;
elements[it->first] = t;
std::cout << "INSERTED: " << std::hex << elements[it->first] << std::endl;
}
// ...
other is the object being copied and elements the map. The clone() method returns a pointer to a new object (via new).
Running the code above I get something like:
CLONE: 0xcfbbc0
INSERTED: 0
I'm not a very experienced programmer and this issue is probably simple to fix, but I didnt find any solution to it searching around.
Thanks a lot for your time.
I don't see any problem with this code, other than maybe
std::map<std::string, data_base*, order>::const_iterator it
Here order gives the key comparator to use to sort the pairs contained in the map (often implemented as a tree).
Maybe you're doing something wrong in it, making your [] operator don't find the right ke, making your last line logging a new pair with a null ptr.
First, try without that order, using the default key-comparator (std::less), then if it don't work, post your order definition and the map declaration. If it's not enough, just provide a simple complete program that reproduce the problem.
I just wrote a simple similar test, using the default key-comparator :
#include <map>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
struct Data
{
int k;
Data* clone() { return new Data(); }
};
typedef std::map< std::string, Data* > DataMap;
DataMap data_map;
int main()
{
data_map[ "hello" ] = new Data();
data_map[ "world" ] = new Data();
DataMap other_map;
for( DataMap::const_iterator it = data_map.begin(); it != data_map.end(); ++it)
{
Data*t = it->second->clone();
std::cout << "CLONE: " << std::hex << t << std::endl;
other_map[it->first] = t;
std::cout << "INSERTED: " << std::hex << other_map[it->first] << std::endl;
}
std::cin.ignore();
return 0;
}
On VS2010SP1, this outputs :
CLONE: 00034DD0
INSERTED: 00034DD0
CLONE: 00035098
INSERTED: 00035098
So it should be the problem, or maybe you're doing something wrong before.
Try this out, to help debug the issue. I'd recommend double-checking that the order function is correct. You can remove it to use std::less<T>, which is known to work.
// ...
typedef std::map<std::string, data_base*, order> string_db_map;
for(string_db_map::const_iterator it = other.elements.begin();
it != other.elements.end();
++it)
{
data_base *t = it->second->clone();
std::cout << "CLONE: " << std::hex << t << std::endl;
std::pair<string_db_map::iterator, bool) result = elements.insert(
string_db_map::value_type( it->first, t));
if ( !result.second )
{
std::cout << "element['" << it->first << "'] was already present, and replaced." << std::endl;
}
std::coud << "INSERTED [iterator]: " << std::hex << (*result.first).second << std::endl;
std::cout << "INSERTED [indexed]: " << std::hex << elements[it->first] << std::endl;
}
// ...