Suppose I have a function named caller, which will call a function named callee:
void caller()
{
callee();
}
Now caller might be called many times in the application, and you want to make sure callee is only called once. (kind of lazy initialization), you could implement it use a flag:
void caller()
{
static bool bFirst = true;
if(bFirst)
{
callee();
bFirst = false;
}
}
My opinion for this is it needs more code, and it needs one more check in every call of function caller.
A better solution to me is as follow: (suppose callee returns int)
void caller()
{
static int ret = callee();
}
But this can't handle the case if callee returns void, my solution is using the comma expression:
void caller()
{
static int ret = (callee(), 1);
}
But the problem with this is that comma expression is not popular used and people may get confused when see this line of code, thus cause problems for maintainance.
Do you have any good idea to make sure a function is only called once?
You could use this:
void caller()
{
static class Once { public: Once(){callee();}} Once_;
}
Thread-safe:
static boost::once_flag flag = BOOST_ONCE_INIT;
boost::call_once([]{callee();}, flag);
You could hide the function through a function pointer.
static void real_function()
{
//do stuff
function = noop_function;
}
static void noop_function()
{
}
int (*function)(void) = real_function;
Callers just call the function which will do the work the first time, and do nothing on any subsequent calls.
Your first variant with a boolean flag bFirst is nothing else that an explict manual implementatuion of what the compiler will do for you implictly in your other variants.
In other words, in a typical implementation in all of the variants you pesented so far there will be an additional check for a boolean flag in the generated machine code. The perfromance of all these variants will be the same (if that's your concern). The extra code in the first variant might look less elegant, but that doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. (Wrap it.)
Anyway, what you have as your first variant is basically how it is normally done (until you start dealing with such issues as multithreading etc.)
Inspired by some people, I think just use a macro to wrap comma expression would also make the intention clear:
#define CALL_ONCE(func) do {static bool dummy = (func, true);} while(0)
Related
I have a function which processes data that comes as a sequence. Because of this, I need to know the value of certain variables from the last function call during the current function call.
My current approach to doing this is to use static variables. My function goes something like this:
bool processData(Object message){
static int lastVar1 = -1;
int curVar1 = message.var1;
if (curVar1 > lastVar1){
// Do something
}
lastVar1 = curVar1;
}
This is just a small sample of the code; in reality I have 10+ static variables tracking different things. My gut tells me using so many static variables probably isn't a good idea, though I have nothing to back that feeling up.
My question: Is there a better way to do this?
An alternative I've been looking into is using an object whose fields are lastVar1, lastVar2, etc. However, I'm not sure if keeping an object in memory would be more efficient than using static variables.
Your question has a taste of being purely about style and opinions, though there are aspects that are not a matter of opinion: multithreading and testing.
Consider this:
bool foo(int x) {
static last_val = -1;
bool result = (x == last_val);
last_val = x;
return result;
}
You can call this function concurrently from multiple threads but it wont do the expected. Moreover you can only test the function by asserting that it does the right thing:
foo(1);
assert( foo(1) ); // silenty assumes that the last call did the right thing
To setup the preconditions for the test (first line) you already have to assume that foo(1) does the right thing, which somehow defeats the purpose of testing that call in the second line.
If the methods need the current object and the previous object, simply pass both:
bool processData(const Object& message,const Object& previous_message){
if (message.var1 > previous_message.var1){
// Do something
return true;
}
return false;
}
Of course this just shifts the issue of keeping track of the previous message to the caller, though thats straight-forward and requires not messing around with statics:
Object message, old_message;
while ( get_more( message )) {
processData(message, old_message);
old_message = message;
}
The Goal:
decide during runtime which templated function to use and then use it later without needing the type information.
A Partial Solution:
for functions where the parameter itself is not templated we can do:
int (*func_ptr)(void*) = &my_templated_func<type_a,type_b>;
this line of code can be modified for use in an if statement with different types for type_a and type_b thus giving us a templated function whose types are determined during runtime:
int (*func_ptr)(void*) = NULL;
if (/* case 1*/)
func_ptr = &my_templated_func<int, float>;
else
func_ptr = &my_templated_func<float, float>;
The Remaining Problem:
How do I do this when the parameter is a templated pointer?
for example, this is something along the lines of what I would like to do:
int (*func_ptr)(templated_struct<type_a,type_b>*); // This won't work cause I don't know type_a or type_b yet
if (/* case 1 */) {
func_ptr = &my_templated_func<int,float>;
arg = calloc(sizeof(templated_struct<int,float>, 1);
}
else {
func_ptr = &my_templated_func<float,float>;
arg = calloc(sizeof(templated_struct<float,float>, 1);
}
func_ptr(arg);
except I would like type_a, and type_b to be determined during runtime. I see to parts to the problem.
What is the function pointers type?
How do I call this function?
I think I have the answer for (2): simply cast the parameter to void* and the template function should do an implicit cast using the function definition (lease correct me if this won't work as I think it will).
(1) is where I am getting stuck since the function pointer must include the parameter types. This is different from the partial solution because for the function pointer definition we were able to "ignore" the template aspect of the function since all we really need is the address of the function.
Alternatively there might be a much better way to accomplish my goal and if so I am all ears.
Thanks to the answer by #Jeffrey I was able to come up with this short example of what I am trying to accomplish:
template <typename A, typename B>
struct args_st {
A argA;
B argB;
}
template<typename A, typename B>
void f(struct args_st<A,B> *args) {}
template<typename A, typename B>
void g(struct args_st<A,B> *args) {}
int someFunction() {
void *args;
// someType needs to know that an args_st struct is going to be passed
// in but doesn't need to know the type of A or B those are compiled
// into the function and with this code, A and B are guaranteed to match
// between the function and argument.
someType func_ptr;
if (/* some runtime condition */) {
args = calloc(sizeof(struct args_st<int,float>), 1);
f((struct args_st<int,float> *) args); // this works
func_ptr = &g<int,float>; // func_ptr should know that it takes an argument of struct args_st<int,float>
}
else {
args = calloc(sizeof(struct args_st<float,float>), 1);
f((struct args_st<float,float> *) args); // this also works
func_ptr = &g<float,float>; // func_ptr should know that it takes an argument of struct args_st<float,float>
}
/* other code that does stuff with args */
// note that I could do another if statement here to decide which
// version of g to use (like I did for f) I am just trying to figure out
// a way to avoid that because the if statement could have a lot of
// different cases similarly I would like to be able to just write one
// line of code that calls f because that could eliminate many lines of
// (sort of) duplicate code
func_ptr(args);
return 0; // Arbitrary value
}
Can't you use a std::function, and use lambdas to capture everything you need? It doesn't appear that your functions take parameters, so this would work.
ie
std::function<void()> callIt;
if(/*case 1*/)
{
callIt = [](){ myTemplatedFunction<int, int>(); }
}
else
{
callIt = []() {myTemplatedFunction<float, float>(); }
}
callIt();
If I understand correctly, What you want to do boils down to:
template<typename T>
void f(T)
{
}
int somewhere()
{
someType func_ptr;
int arg = 0;
if (/* something known at runtime */)
{
func_ptr = &f<float>;
}
else
{
func_ptr = &f<int>;
}
func_ptr(arg);
}
You cannot do that in C++. C++ is statically typed, the template types are all resolved at compile time. If a construct allowed you to do this, the compiler could not know which templates must be instanciated with which types.
The alternatives are:
inheritance for runtime polymorphism
C-style void* everywhere if you want to deal yourself with the underlying types
Edit:
Reading the edited question:
func_ptr should know that it takes an argument of struct args_st<float,float>
func_ptr should know that it takes an argument of struct args_st<int,float>
Those are incompatible. The way this is done in C++ is by typing func_ptr accordingly to the types it takes. It cannot be both/all/any.
If there existed a type for func_ptr so that it could take arguments of arbitrary types, then you could pass it around between functions and compilation units and your language would suddenly not be statically typed. You'd end up with Python ;-p
Maybe you want something like this:
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
void foo(const T& t) {
std::cout << "foo";
}
template <typename T>
void bar(const T& t) {
std::cout << "bar";
}
template <typename T>
using f_ptr = void (*)(const T&);
int main() {
f_ptr<int> a = &bar<int>;
f_ptr<double> b = &foo<double>;
a(1);
b(4.2);
}
Functions taking different parameters are of different type, hence you cannot have a f_ptr<int> point to bar<double>. Otherwise, functions you get from instantiating a function template can be stored in function pointers just like other functions, eg you can have a f_ptr<int> holding either &foo<int> or &bar<int>.
Disclaimer: I have already provided an answer that directly addresses the question. In this answer, I would like to side-step the question and render it moot.
As a rule of thumb, the following code structure is an inferior design in most procedural languages (not just C++).
if ( conditionA ) {
// Do task 1A
}
else {
// Do task 1B
}
// Do common tasks
if ( conditionA ) {
// Do task 2A
}
else {
// Do task 2B
}
You seem to have recognized the drawbacks in this design, as you are trying to eliminate the need for a second if-else in someFunction(). However, your solution is not as clean as it could be.
It is usually better (for code readability and maintainability) to move the common tasks to a separate function, rather than trying to do everything in one function. This gives a code structure more like the following, where the common tasks have been moved to the function foo().
if ( conditionA ) {
// Do task 1A
foo( /* arguments might be needed */ );
// Do task 2A
}
else {
// Do task 1B
foo( /* arguments might be needed */ );
// Do task 2B
}
As a demonstration of the utility of this rule of thumb, let's apply it to someFunction(). ... and eliminate the need for dynamic memory allocation ... and a bit of cleanup ... unfortunately, addressing that nasty void* is out-of-scope ... I'll leave it up to the reader to evaluate the end result. The one feature I will point out is that there is no longer a reason to consider storing a "generic templated function pointer", rendering the asked question moot.
// Ideally, the parameter's type would not be `void*`.
// I leave that for a future refinement.
void foo(void * args) {
/* other code that does stuff with args */
}
int someFunction(bool condition) {
if (/* some runtime condition */) {
args_st<int,float> args;
foo(&args);
f(&args); // Next step: pass by reference instead of passing a pointer
}
else {
args_st<float,float> args;
foo(&args);
f(&args); // Next step: pass by reference instead of passing a pointer
}
return 0;
}
Your choice of manual memory management and over-use of the keyword struct suggests you come from a C background and have not yet really converted to C++ programming. As a result, there are many areas for improvement, and you might find that your current approach should be tossed. However, that is a future step. There is a learning process involved, and incremental improvements to your current code is one way to get there.
First, I'd like to get rid of the C-style memory management. Most of the time, using calloc in C++ code is wrong. Let's replace the raw pointer with a smart pointer. A shared_ptr looks like it will help the process along.
// Instead of a raw pointer to void, use a smart pointer to void.
std::shared_ptr<void> args;
// Use C++ memory management, not calloc.
args = std::make_shared<args_st<int,float>>();
// or
args = std::make_shared<args_st<float,float>>();
This is still not great, as it still uses a pointer to void, which is rarely needed in C++ code unless interfacing with a library written in C. It is, though, an improvement. One side effect of using a pointer to void is the need for casts to get back to the original type. This should be avoided. I can address this in your code by defining correctly-typed variables inside the if statement. The args variable will still be used to hold your pointer once the correctly-typed variables go out of scope.
More improvements along this vein can come later.
The key improvement I would make is to use the functional std::function instead of a function pointer. A std::function is a generalization of a function pointer, able to do more albeit with more overhead. The overhead is warranted here in the interest of robust code.
An advantage of std::function is that the parameter to g() does not need to be known by the code that invokes the std::function. The old style of doing this was std::bind, but lambdas provide a more readable approach. Not only do you not have to worry about the type of args when it comes time to call your function, you don't even need to worry about args.
int someFunction() {
// Use a smart pointer so you do not have to worry about releasing the memory.
std::shared_ptr<void> args;
// Use a functional as a more convenient alternative to a function pointer.
// Note the lack of parameters (nothing inside the parentheses).
std::function<void()> func;
if ( /* some runtime condition */ ) {
// Start with a pointer to something other than void.
auto real_args = std::make_shared<args_st<int,float>>();
// An immediate function call:
f(real_args.get());
// Choosing a function to be called later:
// Note that this captures a pointer to the data, not a copy of the data.
// Hence changes to the data will be reflected when this is invoked.
func = [real_args]() { g(real_args.get()); };
// It's only here, as real_args is about to go out of scope, where
// we lose the type information.
args = real_args;
}
else {
// Similar to the above, so I'll reduce the commentary.
auto real_args = std::make_shared<args_st<float,float>>();
func = [real_args]() { g(real_args.get()); };
args = real_args;
}
/* other code that does stuff with args */
/* This code is probably poor C++ style, but that can be addressed later. */
// Invoke the function.
func();
return 0;
}
Your next step probably should be to do some reading on these features so you understand what this code does. Then you should be in a better position to leverage the power of C++.
The below given code is taken from LevelDB. I am giving two blocks of code for better understanding. I am unable to understand what is happening.
ThreadState is a structure and I have written here to make it easy for the reader.
struct ThreadState {
int tid; // 0..n-1 when running in n threads
Random rand; // Has different seeds for different threads
Stats stats;
SharedState* shared;
ThreadState(int index)
: tid(index),
rand(1000 + index) {
}
};
Is the marked code below an object instantiation of class Benchmark? What is happening in the marked code below?
void Run() {
PrintHeader();
Open();
const char* benchmarks = FLAGS_benchmarks;
while (benchmarks != NULL) {
{
//code ommitted
}
// Reset parameters that may be overriddden bwlow
***void (Benchmark::*method)(ThreadState*) = NULL;*** // What does this code line mean? // Benchmark is a class.
bool fresh_db = false;
int num_threads = FLAGS_threads;
if (name == Slice("fillseq")) {
fresh_db = true;
method = &Benchmark::WriteSeq;
}
If required, I can give detailed implementation of Benchmark as well.
Thanks a lot for the help!
void (Benchmark::*method)(ThreadState*) = NULL;
// What does this code line mean?
// Benchmark is a class.
The above is a pointer to a member function. Since member functions are not like regular functions (they can only be called on a valid object), you cannot take their address it the same way you would for a free function.
Therefore the above syntax is introduced. It is similar to a regular function pointer except the class specifier Benchmark::. This is essentially the type of the implicit this pointer.
In your case, method is a pointer to a member function that takes ThreadState* as a parameter, and has a void return type. The reason for using it is most probably to simplify the call. First, and based on various parameters, a member function is chosen to be called, and its "address" stored in method. After all the checks are done, there is only a single call to the chosen function via the pointer to member.
Incidentally, &Benchmark::WriteSeq is how the code obtains the "address" of the member function WriteSeq. You must use the address-of operator on the qualified function name.
I want to call the following function and pass it a function with a parameter. The purpose of that is that it should call the function with my specified parameter so I know what triggered the function (in that case a gpio pin on the Raspberry Pi).
int wiringPiISR( int pin, int edgeType, void (*function)( void ) );
Currently I have:
for ( int i = 0; i < myValues.size(); ++i )
{
int myValue = myValues[ i ];
wiringPiISR( myValue, INT_EDGE_RISING, &myCallback( myValue ) );
}
Though this is giving me the following error:
error: lvalue required as unary ‘&’ operand
Which I can't really understand as to my understanding, myValue is an lvalue or is it not?
Is it what I want do even possible? If so how?
The function wiringPiISR is from a library called wiringPi and I would like to avoid modifying it as much as possible.
You could combine the answers from imreal and Ryan Haining something like this.
std::function<void()> cbfunc;
void myCallback()
{
cbfunc();
}
void myWiringPiISR(int val, int mask, std::function<void()> callback)
{
cbfunc = callback;
wiringPiISR(val, mask, &myCallback);
}
... and then use it...
void myActualCallback(int v)
{
... do something...
}
myWiringPiISR(myValue, INT_EDGE_RISING, std::bind(myActualCallback, myValue));
No need to patch library, and you can use all the bind/function goodness. I'll leave you to find a way around the thread safety issues...
How does it work? Put simply 'std::bind' is binding together a function and it's parameters into a single std:function object which can then be 'called' from the myCallback function which acts as a shim around the callback that you pass. I'd given the callback function a confusing name before, but this edit has hopefully fixed that.
You can "vomit" the function. This doesn't require a user-defined mutable global variable and is thread-safe, unless you have a compiler that supports multiple threads but not per-thread exceptions which would be basically unusable.
myWiringPiISRWrapper(Value value, int edge, std::function<void()> func) {
try {
throw &func;
} catch(...) {
myWiringPiISR(value, edge, [] {
try {
throw;
} catch(std::function<void()>* func) {
(*func)();
}
});
}
}
It's disgusting and slow, but it's totally encapsulated which I think is a worthwhile upside. Note that this only works if the callback is never executed after the call to myWiringPiISR returns. In this case you can of course have a callback with whatever bound state you desire.
If myValue is something you can decide at compile time, you could set it statically and use an intermediate function to pass in.
void myCallbackHelper() {
static constexpr int myValue = 3;
myCallback(myValue);
}
wiringPiISR(myValue, INT_EDGE_RISING, &myCallbackHelper);
If you need to determine myValue at run time, you could still accomplish this, but not really thread-safely.
int& getMyValue() {
static int myValue;
return myValue;
}
void setMyValue(int i) {
getMyValue() = i;
}
void myCallbackHelper() {
myCallback(getMyValue());
}
Then set it and call
setMyValue(3);
wiringPiISR(myValue, INT_EDGE_RISING, &myCallbackHelper);
I looked up wiringPiISR and found that it is some sort of api call, so i am assuming you cannot change it.
Having said that, there is a reason most api-calls with a function-pointer-callback look sort of like this
void setCallback( void (*function)(void* data), void* userdata);
This allows people to cast their struct {blabla} data; to add some userdata, and when the function is called, it is passed along.
So basically, apart from hacking stuff with static variables, you can't pass any arguments.
You need to use std::function and std::bind.
Change your function signature to
int wiringPiISR (int pin, int edgeType, std::function<void()> func);
Inside you can call the callback simply using func()
And your call to:
int myValue = 3;
wiringPiISR(myValue, INT_EDGE_RISING, std::bind(myCallback, myValue));
What this does is create a std::function object (i.e. a callable) that wraps your function and keeps your desired value in its state.
This will only work on C++11 and newer.
If you have c++11, I suggest using std::function - it's quite a bit cleaner.
If not, your function signature is wrong. You want a callback with the type void(int) but your function takes a void()
Let's say you have a function in C/C++, that behaves a certain way the first time it runs. And then, all other times it behaves another way (see below for example). After it runs the first time, the if statement becomes redundant and could be optimized away if speed is important. Is there any way to make this optimization?
bool val = true;
void function1() {
if (val == true) {
// do something
val = false;
}
else {
// do other stuff, val is never set to true again
}
}
gcc has a builtin function that let you inform the implementation about branch prediction:
__builtin_expect
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html
For example in your case:
bool val = true;
void function1()
{
if (__builtin_expect(val, 0)) {
// do something
val = false;
}
else {
// do other stuff, val is never set to true again
}
}
You should only make the change if you're certain that it truly is a bottleneck. With branch-prediction, the if statement is probably instant, since it's a very predictable pattern.
That said, you can use callbacks:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
typedef void (*FunPtr) (void);
FunPtr method;
void subsequentRun()
{
std::cout << "subsequent call" << std::endl;
}
void firstRun()
{
std::cout << "first run" << std::endl;
method = subsequentRun;
}
int main()
{
method = firstRun;
method();
method();
method();
}
produces the output:
first run subsequent call subsequent call
You could use a function pointer but then it will require an indirect call in any case:
void (*yourFunction)(void) = &firstCall;
void firstCall() {
..
yourFunction = &otherCalls;
}
void otherCalls() {
..
}
void main()
{
yourFunction();
}
One possible method is to compile two different versions of the function (this can be done from a single function in the source with templates), and use a function pointer or object to decide at runtime. However, the pointer overhead will likely outweigh any potential gains unless your function is really expensive.
You could use a static member variable instead of a global variable..
Or, if the code you're running the first time changes something for all future uses (eg, opening a file?), you could use that change as a check to determine whether or not to run the code (ie, check if the file is open). This would save you the extra variable. Also, it might help with error checking - if for some reason the initial change is be unchanged by another operation (eg, the file is on removable media that is removed improperly), your check could try to re-do the change.
A compiler can only optimize what is known at compile time.
In your case, the value of val is only known at runtime, so it can't be optimized.
The if test is very quick, you shouldn't worry about optimizing it.
If you'd like to make the code a little bit cleaner you could make the variable local to the function using static:
void function() {
static bool firstRun = true;
if (firstRun) {
firstRun = false;
...
}
else {
...
}
}
On entering the function for the first time, firstRun would be true, and it would persist so each time the function is called, the firstRun variable will be the same instance as the ones before it (and will be false each subsequent time).
This could be used well with #ouah's solution.
Compilers like g++ (and I'm sure msvc) support generating profile data upon a first run, then using that data to better guess what branches are most likely to be followed, and optimizing accordingly. If you're using gcc, look at the -fprofile-generate option.
The expected behavior is that the compiler will optimize that if statement such that the else will be ordered first, thus avoiding the jmp operation on all your subsequent calls, making it pretty much as fast as if it wern't there, especially if you return somewhere in that else (thus avoiding having to jump past the 'if' statements)
One way to make this optimization is to split the function in two. Instead of:
void function1()
{
if (val == true) {
// do something
val = false;
} else {
// do other stuff
}
}
Do this:
void function1()
{
// do something
}
void function2()
{
// do other stuff
}
One thing you can do is put the logic into the constructor of an object, which is then defined static. If such a static object occurs in a block scope, the constructor is run the fist time that an execution of that scope takes place. The once-only check is emitted by the compiler.
You can also put static objects at file scope, and then they are initialized before main is called.
I'm giving this answer because perhaps you're not making effective use of C++ classes.
(Regarding C/C++, there is no such language. There is C and there is C++. Are you working in C that has to also compile as C++ (sometimes called, unofficially, "Clean C"), or are you really working in C++?)
What is "Clean C" and how does it differ from standard C?
To remain compiler INDEPENDENT you can code the parts of if() in one function and else{} in another. almost all compilers optimize the if() else{} - so, once the most LIKELY being the else{} - hence code the occasional executable code in if() and the rest in a separate function that's called in else