I am trying to write a generic allocator class that does not really release an object's memory when it is free()'d but holds it in a queue and returns a previously allocated object if a new one is requested. Now, what I can't wrap my head around is how to pass arguments to the object's constructor when using my allocator (at least without resorting to variadic templates, that is). The alloc() function i came up with looks like this:
template <typename... T>
inline T *alloc(const &T... args) {
T *p;
if (_free.empty()) {
p = new T(args...);
} else {
p = _free.front();
_free.pop();
// to call the ctor of T, we need to first call its DTor
p->~T();
p = new( p ) T(args...);
}
return p;
}
Still, I need the code to be compatible with today's C++ (and older versions of GCC that do not support variadic templates). Is there any other way to go about passing an arbitrary amount of arguments to the objects constructor?
When you need to target pre-C++0x compilers you need to provide pseudo-variadic templates, i.e. you need to provide a template function for every needed arity:
template<class T>
T* alloc() {
/* ... */
}
template<class T, class A0>
T* alloc(const A0& a0) {
/* ... */
}
/* ... */
You can use preprocessor metaprogramming though to handle the repititions, e.g. by using Boost.Preprocessor or by simply generating the functions using a simple script.
Following is a simple example using Boost.PP:
#include <boost/preprocessor/arithmetic/inc.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/repetition/enum_binary_params.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/repetition/enum_params.hpp>
template<class T>
T* alloc() {
return new T;
}
#define FUNCTION_ALLOC(z, N, _) \
template<class T, BOOST_PP_ENUM_PARAMS_Z(z, BOOST_PP_INC(N), class T)> \
T* alloc(BOOST_PP_ENUM_BINARY_PARAMS_Z(z, BOOST_PP_INC(N), const T, &p)) { \
return new T( \
BOOST_PP_ENUM_PARAMS_Z(z, BOOST_PP_INC(N), p) \
); \
}
BOOST_PP_REPEAT(10, FUNCTION_ALLOC, ~)
#undef FUNCTION_ALLOC
This generates you alloc() template functions for up to 10 arguments.
The pre-C++11 solution to the problem is to provide only one simple alloc function which constructs a copy of its argument. This is the way C++03 allocators and all the containers worked, for more than 20 years. Applying it to your code it becomes:
template <typename T>
inline T *alloc(const &T arg) {
T *p;
if (_free.empty()) {
p = new T(arg);
} else {
p = _free.front();
_free.pop();
// to call the ctor of T, we need to first call its DTor
p->~T();
p = new( p ) T(arg);
}
return p;
}
And then you call it as:
// copy construct T into the allocator's memory:
instance_of_your_allocator.alloc(T(1, 2, 3));
The downside of this approach is that it requires a copy-constructor to be available, and its potentially a costly operation.
One more example:
vector<T> vec;
vec.push_back(T(1, 2, 3)); // C++03 way, uses move cons-tor in C++11 if possible.
vec.emplace_back(1, 2, 3); // C++11 way, constructs in-place
Related
C++ allocators (as used by std::vector) are tricky to. I understand that they changed a lot to allow stateful allocators and PMR, leading to some of the cruftiness. My core question is: if allocators are intended to replace new and delete, why do they only provide an API like malloc and free? I understand why, e.g., std::vector needs a malloc interface since it needs to allocate a buffer without calling constructors, but in general, it seems like we are missing these functions:
#include <cassert>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
//! Rebind alloc to type T
template <typename T, typename Alloc>
auto rebound_allocator(const Alloc& alloc) {
return typename std::allocator_traits<Alloc>::template rebind_alloc<T>{alloc};
}
//! Like operator delete but for a single T allocated by rebound_allocator<T>(alloc).
template <typename T, typename Alloc>
void allocator_delete(const Alloc& alloc, T* ptr) {
assert(ptr);
auto a = rebound_allocator<T>(alloc);
using traits_t = std::allocator_traits<decltype(a)>;
// Should we try/catch around destroy and always deallocate?
traits_t::destroy(a, ptr);
traits_t::deallocate(a, ptr, 1);
}
//! Returned memory must be freed with, e.g., allocator_delete(alloc, ptr).
template <typename T, typename Alloc, typename... Args>
[[nodiscard]] T* allocator_new(const Alloc& alloc, Args&&... args) {
auto a = rebound_allocator<T>(alloc);
using traits_t = std::allocator_traits<decltype(a)>;
auto deallocate = [&a](T* ptr) { traits_t::deallocate(a, ptr, 1); };
// Hold in a unique_ptr to deallocate if construction throws.
auto buf = std::unique_ptr<T, decltype(deallocate)>(traits_t::allocate(a, 1), deallocate);
traits_t::construct(a, buf.get(), std::forward<Args>(args)...);
return buf.release();
}
//! Like make_unique. Beware: The allocator is is referenced by the deleter!
template <typename T, typename Alloc, typename... Args>
[[nodiscard]] auto allocator_make_unique(const Alloc& alloc, Args&&... args) {
auto dtor = [&alloc](T* ptr) { allocator_delete<T>(alloc, ptr); };
return std::unique_ptr<T, decltype(dtor)>(allocator_new<T>(alloc, std::forward<Args>(args)...),
dtor);
}
struct S {
float x;
S(float x) : x(x) { std::cout << "S::S()" << std::endl; }
~S() { std::cout << "S::~S()" << std::endl; }
};
int main() {
std::allocator<int> alloc;
auto ptr = allocator_make_unique<S>(alloc, 42.5f);
assert(ptr);
std::cout << ptr->x << std::endl;
}
Output:
S::S()
42.5
S::~S()
https://godbolt.org/z/sheec6br3
Am I missing something? Is this the right way to implement essentially new and delete and make_unique using allocators? If so, is this really not provided by the standard library?
Edit:
I think (but am not sure?) that if T is allocator-aware, traits_t::construct(a, ptr, n) will propagate itself into the created object?
Edit:
Here's a cleaned-up version: https://godbolt.org/z/47Tdzf4W7
Edit:
Original version: https://godbolt.org/z/dGW7hzdc1
My core question is: if allocators are intended to replace new and delete, why do they only provide an API like malloc and free?
The API of allocators are such as it is because an important point of allocators is that memory allocation and object creation must be separated. This is necessary for example to implement a container such as std::vector. Allocators are a generalisation of operator new / delete, not generalisation of the new expression.
is this really not provided by the standard library?
No, these functions aren't provided by the standard library.
Is this the right way to implement essentially new and delete and make_unique using allocators?
auto dtor = [&alloc](T* ptr) { destruct_and_deallocate(alloc, ptr); };
^
Capturing allocator by reference into the deleter seems bad. It should be copied to be safe.
Other suggestions:
In the default case of std::allocator, we would like to avoid paying for the overhead of the deleter. Consider adding a specialisation that delegates to std::make_unique when std::allocator is used.
You could avoid the try-catch by using an intermediary unique pointer with deleter that only deallocates:
T* ptr = traits_t::allocate(rebound_alloc, 1);
auto dealloc = [&](T* ptr) { traits_t::deallocate(rebound_alloc, ptr, 1); };
std::unique_ptr<T, decltype(dealloc)> storage(ptr, dealloc);
traits_t::construct(rebound_alloc, storage.get(), std::forward<Args>(args)...);
auto dtor = [alloc](T* ptr) { destruct_and_deallocate(alloc, ptr); };
return std::unique_ptr<T, decltype(dtor)>(storage.release(), dtor);
Edit: I think (but am not sure?) that if T is allocator-aware, traits_t::construct(a, ptr, n) will propagate itself into the created object?
No, object's have no knowledge of the allocator that creates them or allocates their memory. "Allocator aware" containers are simply generic tempaltes that allow the user to provide a custom allocator, and avoid allocating memory through other means.
As I understand, typedef cannot be used for overloading but what if I need to use some different types as arguments to the function pointer?
How can I make it work with the following functionality?
{
public:
typedef void (*InitFunc)(float x);
typedef void (*InitFunc)(int a, char b); //Needs to be added
virtual void initialize(InitFunc init) = 0;
};
Edit:
I cannot use C++17, so can't use variant
As commented, the easiest way is a union, although not very type safe and C++-y. Here is an example with inheritance, since you commented that you want inheritance.
typedef void (*FloatInit)(float x);
typedef void (*IntCharInit)(int a, char b);
union InitFn {
FloatInit fi;
IntCharInit ici;
};
struct Foo {
void initialize(InitFn) = 0;
};
struct FloatFoo: public Foo {
void initialize(InitFn f) override {
f.fi(42.0f);
}
};
void test(float) {}
// ...
auto x = FloatFoo{};
x.initialize(InitFn{test});
As mentioned by other commenters, you can use std::variant to enhance type safety and get rid of the manual union definition:
typedef void (*FloatInit)(float x);
typedef void (*IntCharInit)(int a, char b);
typedef std::variant<FloatInit, IntCharInit> InitFn;
struct Foo {
void initialize(InitFn) = 0;
};
struct FloatFoo: public Foo {
void initialize(InitFn f) override {
std::get<FloatInit>(f)(42.0f);
}
};
void test(float) {}
// ...
auto x = FloatFoo{};
x.initialize(InitFn{test});
One solution is to create a simple wrapper class template instead, to allow the compiler to automatically generate instantiations as necessary. This is relatively simple if init is always guaranteed to be a non-member function (and by extension, an actual function and not a functor/lambda).
// Quick-and-dirty transparent callable wrapper, to serve as overloadable "type alias".
template<typename>
class InitFunc;
template<typename Ret, typename... Params>
class InitFunc<Ret(*)(Params...)> {
public:
// Supply component types if needed.
// Tuple used for params, for convenience.
using return_type = Ret;
using param_types = std::tuple<Params...>;
using func_type = Ret(Params...);
using func_ptr_type = func_type*;
using func_ref_type = func_type&;
// Create from pointer or reference.
constexpr InitFunc(func_ptr_type p = nullptr) : ptr(p) {}
constexpr InitFunc(func_ref_type r) : ptr(&r) {}
// Transparent invocation.
// Deduces argument types instead of relying on Params, to allow for perfect forwarding.
template<typename... Ts>
constexpr return_type operator()(Ts&&... ts) { return ptr(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...); }
// Convert back to original type if necessary.
operator func_ptr_type() { return ptr; }
operator func_ref_type() { return *ptr; }
private:
// Actual function pointer.
func_ptr_type ptr;
};
// And a nice, clean creator, which can be renamed as necessary.
template<typename Init>
constexpr auto make(Init func) { return InitFunc<Init>(func); }
This creates a nice little wrapper that can easily be optimised out entirely, and will compile as long as C++14 support is available.
Note that you require a C++11 compiler (or variadic templates, rvalue references, perfect forwarding, and constexpr support) at the absolute minimum, and will need to modify make() to have a trailing return type for pre-C++14 compilers. I believe this is compatible with C++11 constexpr, but I'm not 100% sure.
If you want InitFunc to be able to accept pointers/references-to-member-function (including functors and lambdas), you'll need to provide an additional version to isolate it into a non-member "function", and likely bind it to a class instance. It may be worth looking into std::bind() in this case, although I'm not sure if it has any overhead.
In this case, I would suggest splitting the member types off into a base class, to reduce the amount of code you'll need to duplicate.
// Quick-and-dirty transparent callable wrapper, to serve as overloadable "type alias".
template<typename>
class InitFunc;
// Supply component types if needed.
// Tuple used for params, for convenience.
// Using actual function type as a base, similar to std::function.
template<typename Ret, typename... Params>
class InitFunc<Ret(Params...)> {
public:
using return_type = Ret;
using param_types = std::tuple<Params...>;
using func_type = Ret(Params...);
using func_ptr_type = func_type*;
using func_ref_type = func_type&;
};
// Non-member functions.
// As member types are now dependent types, we qualify them and use `typename`.
// Yes, it looks just as silly as you think it does.
template<typename Ret, typename... Params>
class InitFunc<Ret(*)(Params...)> : public InitFunc<Ret(Params...)> {
// Actual function pointer.
typename InitFunc::func_ptr_type ptr;
public:
// Create from pointer or reference.
constexpr InitFunc(typename InitFunc::func_ptr_type p = nullptr) : ptr(p) {}
constexpr InitFunc(typename InitFunc::func_ref_type r) : ptr(&r) {}
// Transparent invocation.
// Deduces argument types instead of relying on Params, to allow for perfect forwarding.
template<typename... Ts>
constexpr typename InitFunc::return_type operator()(Ts&&... ts) { return ptr(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...); }
// Convert back to original type if necessary.
operator typename InitFunc::func_ptr_type() { return ptr; }
operator typename InitFunc::func_ref_type() { return *ptr; }
};
// See ecatmur's http://stackoverflow.com/a/13359520/5386374 for how to accomodate member functions.
// ...
// Non-member function make() is unaffected.
// An overload will likely be needed for member functions.
template<typename Init>
auto make(Init func) { return InitFunc<Init>(func); }
Despite the awkwardness inside our derived specialisation, any code that relies on InitFunc shouldn't (to my knowledge) see any changes to its API; the previous example will work just fine if we swap to this new InitFunc, and be none the wiser after recompilation.
Note that it will change the ABI, though, and thus any code compiled for the simpler InitFunc will need to be recompiled for this version.
Is there a convenient way to re-assign the value of a unique_ptr with a new owned object, without re-specifying the type?
For instance:
std::unique_ptr<int> foo;
// .... Later, once we actually have a value to store...
foo = std::make_unique<int>(my_cool_value);
Of course int is not too much of an eyesore, but foo::element_type could be long or subject to change after a refactoring.
So, to use type inference, we could do:
foo = std::make_unique<decltype(foo)::element_type>(value);
...But that's pretty hideous (foo::element_type doesn't work because foo can't be used in a constant expression).
Ideally, std::unique_ptr would support a forwarding emplace-like method:
foo.reassign(value);
This would release the old value and, just like std::vector::emplace, construct the new owned object in-place.
....But as far as I can tell, there's nothing more concise than make_unique<decltype(foo)::element_type>.
EDIT: The most concise way to reassign the value for a type that supports operator= is, of course, to use operator=:
*foo = value;`
...But I do not want to rely on the copyability of element_type (for instance, I initially ran into this issue when trying to work with input-file streams).
Stash the arguments (or references thereto) into a proxy object with a templated conversion operator that deduces the target type. Then construct the new object once you have that deduced.
template<class... Args>
struct maker {
template<class T>
operator std::unique_ptr<T>() && {
return make<T>(std::index_sequence_for<Args...>());
}
std::tuple<Args...> args;
private:
template<class T, size_t ... Is>
std::unique_ptr<T> make(std::index_sequence<Is...>) {
return std::make_unique<T>(std::get<Is>(std::move(args))...);
}
};
template<class... Args>
auto maybe_make_unique_eventually(Args&&... args){
return maker<Args&&...>{std::forward_as_tuple(std::forward<Args>(args)...)};
}
It won't be a member function, but a free function could essentially achieve this:
template<typename T, typename D, typename...Args>
void TakeNew(std::unique_ptr<T,D>& up, Args&&... args)
{
up.reset(new T{std::forward<Args>(args)...});
// or use parentheses for consistency with `make_unique`; see comments
}
// usage...
auto foo = std::make_unique<int>(3);
// .... Later...
TakeNew(foo, 5);
(I do not consider this solution ideal.)
#include <memory>
// a class with a long and unweildy name
namespace mary {
namespace poppins {
struct supercalafragalisticexpialadocious
{
};
}
}
int main()
{
// what we don't want to have to do:
auto a = std::make_unique<mary::poppins::supercalafragalisticexpialadocious>();
// so alias the typename
using atrocious = mary::poppins::supercalafragalisticexpialadocious;
// same type with a shorter name
a = std::make_unique<atrocious>();
}
As you have unique ownership, unless the type is not copyable, you may simply do
*foo = value;
I just dont know how to do it..
Basically, if each template specialization type (T) have different parameters for its initialization, how can a generalized ResourceCache load/create a resource?
template< class T>
class ResourceCache{
T* cache[100];
T* LoadResource(different parameters for different T ){//used in a cache miss..
Create( different parameters for different T );
}
}
If I use abstraction for, i.e., a IResourceParams class, my ResourceCache will not be able to use its own known type resource data without using polymorphism, its kinda stupid, since at runtime he knows what the type is, id be tottaly doing shit at runtime in prol of a compile time facility...I guess..
On my current try I created a templated IResourceDesc that have a virtual T* Create() method, so you need to derive for add data and specialize the Create method, but it sucks, because I cant have a collection of IResourceDesc in the ResourceCache class ( for comparing current loaded ones, acquiring cached resources by desc, etc)...
In C++11, this is rather easy with a variadic template and perfect-forwarding:
#include <utility>
template<class... Args>
T* LoadResource(Args&&... args){
unsigned dest_index = /* pick it */ 0;
cache[dest_index] = new T(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
return cache[dest_index];
}
For C++03, either provide ~10 overloads with different number of parameters or go for the in-place factory style:
template< class T>
class ResourceCache{
T* cache[100];
template<class Factory>
T* LoadResource(Factory const& f){
unsigned dest_index = /* pick cache slot */ 0;
void* dest = operator new(sizeof(T));
cache[dest_index] = f.construct(dest);
return cache[dest_index];
}
}
template<class T, class A1>
struct in_place_factory1{
in_place_factory1(A1 const& a1) : _arg1(a1) {}
int* construct(void* dest) const{
return new (dest) T(_arg1);
}
private:
A1 const& _arg1; // make sure the original argument outlives the factory
};
// in code
ResourceCache<int> cache;
int arg = 5;
int* res = cache.LoadResource(in_place_factory1<int,int>(arg));
In-place factories are basically an inferior version of perfect-forwarding variadic template functions that can emplace the object directly into the containers storage without requiring an already complete object for a copy.
I'm interested in building an uninitialized_vector container, which will be semantically identical to std::vector with the caveat that new elements which otherwise would be created with a no-argument constructor will instead be created without initialization. I'm primarily interested in avoiding initializing POD to 0. As far as I can tell, there's no way to accomplish this by combining std::vector with a special kind of allocator.
I'd like to build my container in the same vein as std::stack, which adapts a user-provided container (in my case, std::vector). In other words, I'd like to avoid reimplementing the entirety of std::vector and instead provide a "facade" around it.
Is there a simple way to control default construction from the "outside" of std::vector?
Here's the solution I arrived at, which was inspired Kerrek's answer:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
#include <algorithm>
#include <cassert>
// uninitialized_allocator adapts a given base allocator
// uninitialized_allocator's behavior is equivalent to the base
// except for its no-argument construct function, which is a no-op
template<typename T, typename BaseAllocator = std::allocator<T>>
struct uninitialized_allocator
: BaseAllocator::template rebind<T>::other
{
typedef typename BaseAllocator::template rebind<T>::other super_t;
template<typename U>
struct rebind
{
typedef uninitialized_allocator<U, BaseAllocator> other;
};
// XXX for testing purposes
typename super_t::pointer allocate(typename super_t::size_type n)
{
auto result = super_t::allocate(n);
// fill result with 13 so we can check afterwards that
// the result was not default-constructed
std::fill(result, result + n, 13);
return result;
}
// catch default-construction
void construct(T *p)
{
// no-op
}
// forward everything else with at least one argument to the base
template<typename Arg1, typename... Args>
void construct(T* p, Arg1 &&arg1, Args&&... args)
{
super_t::construct(p, std::forward<Arg1>(arg1), std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
};
namespace std
{
// XXX specialize allocator_traits
// this shouldn't be necessary, but clang++ 2.7 + libc++ has trouble
// recognizing that uninitialized_allocator<T> has a well-formed
// construct function
template<typename T>
struct allocator_traits<uninitialized_allocator<T> >
: std::allocator_traits<std::allocator<T>>
{
typedef uninitialized_allocator<T> allocator_type;
// for testing purposes, forward allocate through
static typename allocator_type::pointer allocate(allocator_type &a, typename allocator_type::size_type n)
{
return a.allocate(n);
}
template<typename... Args>
static void construct(allocator_type &a, T* ptr, Args&&... args)
{
a.construct(ptr, std::forward<Args>(args)...);
};
};
}
// uninitialized_vector is implemented by adapting an allocator and
// inheriting from std::vector
// a template alias would be another possiblity
// XXX does not compile with clang++ 2.9
//template<typename T, typename BaseAllocator>
//using uninitialized_vector = std::vector<T, uninitialized_allocator<T,BaseAllocator>>;
template<typename T, typename BaseAllocator = std::allocator<T>>
struct uninitialized_vector
: std::vector<T, uninitialized_allocator<T,BaseAllocator>>
{};
int main()
{
uninitialized_vector<int> vec;
vec.resize(10);
// everything should be 13
assert(std::count(vec.begin(), vec.end(), 13) == vec.size());
// copy construction should be preserved
vec.push_back(7);
assert(7 == vec.back());
return 0;
}
This solution will work depending on how closely a particular vendor's compiler & STL's std::vector implementation conforms to c++11.
Instead of using a wrapper around the container, consider using a wrapper around the element type:
template <typename T>
struct uninitialized
{
uninitialized() { }
T value;
};
I think the problem boils down to the type of initialization that the container performs on elements. Compare:
T * p1 = new T; // default-initalization
T * p2 = new T(); // value-initialization
The problem with the standard containers is that they take the default argument to be value initialized, as in resize(size_t, T = T()). This means that there's no elegant way to avoid value-initialization or copying. (Similarly for the constructor.)
Even using the standard allocators doesn't work, because their central construct() function takes an argument that becomes value-initialized. What you would rather need is a construct() that uses default-initialization:
template <typename T>
void definit_construct(void * addr)
{
new (addr) T; // default-initialization
}
Such a thing wouldn't be a conforming standard allocator any more, but you could build your own container around that idea.
I don't believe this is possible by wrapping a vector (that works with every type), unless you resize the vector on every add and remove operation.
If you could give up wrapping STL containers, you could do this by keeping an array of char on the heap and using placement new for each of the objects you want to construct. This way you could control exactly when the constructors and destructors of objects were called, one by one.