I just got burned by a bug that is partially due to my lack of understanding, and partially due to what I think is suboptimal design in our codebase. I'm curious as to how my 5-minute solution can be improved.
We're using ref-counted objects, where we have AddRef() and Release() on objects of these classes. One particular object is derived from the ref-count object, but a common function to get an instance of these objects (GetExisting) hides an AddRef() within itself without advertising that it is doing so. This necessitates doing a Release at the end of the functional block to free the hidden ref, but a developer who didn't inspect the implementation of GetExisting() wouldn't know that, and someone who forgets to add a Release at the end of the function (say, during a mad dash of bug-fixing crunch time) leaks objects. This, of course, was my burn.
void SomeFunction(ProgramStateInfo *P)
{
ThreadClass *thread = ThreadClass::GetExisting( P );
// some code goes here
bool result = UseThreadSomehow(thread);
// some code goes here
thread->Release(); // Need to do this because GetExisting() calls AddRef()
}
So I wrote up a little class to avoid the need for the Release() at the end of these functions.
class ThreadContainer
{
private:
ThreadClass *m_T;
public:
ThreadContainer(Thread *T){ m_T = T; }
~ThreadContainer() { if(m_T) m_T->Release(); }
ThreadClass * Thread() const { return m_T; }
};
So that now I can just do this:
void SomeFunction(ProgramStateInfo *P)
{
ThreadContainer ThreadC(ThreadClass::GetExisting( P ));
// some code goes here
bool result = UseThreadSomehow(ThreadC.Thread());
// some code goes here
// Automagic Release() in ThreadC Destructor!!!
}
What I don't like is that to access the thread pointer, I have to call a member function of ThreadContainer, Thread(). Is there some clever way that I can clean that up so that it's syntactically prettier, or would anything like that obscure the meaning of the container and introduce new problems for developers unfamiliar with the code?
Thanks.
use boost::shared_ptr
it is possible to define your own destructor function, such us in next example: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_38_0/libs/smart_ptr/sp_techniques.html#com
Yes, you can implement operator ->() for the class, which will recursively call operator ->() on whatever you return:
class ThreadContainer
{
private:
ThreadClass *m_T;
public:
ThreadContainer(Thread *T){ m_T = T; }
~ThreadContainer() { if(m_T) m_T->Release(); }
ThreadClass * operator -> () const { return m_T; }
};
It's effectively using smart pointer semantics for your wrapper class:
Thread *t = new Thread();
...
ThreadContainer tc(t);
...
tc->SomeThreadFunction(); // invokes tc->t->SomeThreadFunction() behind the scenes...
You could also write a conversion function to enable your UseThreadSomehow(ThreadContainer tc) type calls in a similar way.
If Boost is an option, I think you can set up a shared_ptr to act as a smart reference as well.
Take a look at ScopeGuard. It allows syntax like this (shamelessly stolen from that link):
{
FILE* topSecret = fopen("cia.txt");
ON_BLOCK_EXIT(std::fclose, topSecret);
... use topSecret ...
} // topSecret automagically closed
Or you could try Boost::ScopeExit:
void World::addPerson(Person const& aPerson) {
bool commit = false;
m_persons.push_back(aPerson); // (1) direct action
BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT( (&commit)(&m_persons) )
{
if(!commit)
m_persons.pop_back(); // (2) rollback action
} BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT_END
// ... // (3) other operations
commit = true; // (4) turn all rollback actions into no-op
}
I would recommend following bb advice and using boost::shared_ptr<>. If boost is not an option, you can take a look at std::auto_ptr<>, which is simple and probably addresses most of your needs. Take into consideration that the std::auto_ptr has special move semantics that you probably don't want to mimic.
The approach is providing both the * and -> operators together with a getter (for the raw pointer) and a release operation in case you want to release control of the inner object.
You can add an automatic type-cast operator to return your raw pointer. This approach is used by Microsoft's CString class to give easy access to the underlying character buffer, and I've always found it handy. There might be some unpleasant surprises to be discovered with this method, as in any time you have an implicit conversion, but I haven't run across any.
class ThreadContainer
{
private:
ThreadClass *m_T;
public:
ThreadContainer(Thread *T){ m_T = T; }
~ThreadContainer() { if(m_T) m_T->Release(); }
operator ThreadClass *() const { return m_T; }
};
void SomeFunction(ProgramStateInfo *P)
{
ThreadContainer ThreadC(ThreadClass::GetExisting( P ));
// some code goes here
bool result = UseThreadSomehow(ThreadC);
// some code goes here
// Automagic Release() in ThreadC Destructor!!!
}
Related
I'm trying to overload the -> operator to eventually execute something along the lines:
MyInterface *myInstance = (MyInterface *)(new A());
myInstance->Toggle(); //this works wonderfully
std::shared_ptr<Wrapper<MyInterface>> sharedPtrWrapper = std::make_shared<Wrapper<MyInterface>>(myInstance);
//the next line doesn't compile, I would like to achieve something like this, but even
//sharedPtrWrapper.get()->Toggle();
//would be nice to achieve, is this possible?
sharedPtrWrapper->Toggle();
//this works:
sharedPtrWrapper->operator->()->Toggle();
Note: I have no control over MyInterface, cannot implement the pure virtual destructor.
Here is what I tried (the below code runs):
#import <memory>
#import <iostream>
struct MyInterface {
virtual bool Toggle() = 0;
};
class A : public MyInterface {
public:
bool Toggle() {
stateEnabled = !stateEnabled;
std::cout<<"current state " << stateEnabled << std::endl;
return true;
}
private:
bool stateEnabled = false;
};
template <typename T>
class Wrapper {
private:
T *unsafePointer = nullptr;
public:
Wrapper<T>()
{ }
T *operator->() const {
return unsafePointer;
}
T *getInner() {
return unsafePointer;
}
Wrapper<T>(T *stuff) {
unsafePointer = stuff;
}
~Wrapper<T>() {}
};
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
MyInterface *myInstance = (MyInterface *)(new A());
myInstance->Toggle();
Wrapper<MyInterface> wrapperS(myInstance);
wrapperS->Toggle();
std::shared_ptr<Wrapper<MyInterface>> sharedPtrWrapper = std::make_shared<Wrapper<MyInterface>>(myInstance);
sharedPtrWrapper->operator->()->Toggle();
sharedPtrWrapper.operator->()->operator->()->Toggle();
sharedPtrWrapper.get()->operator->()->Toggle();
(*sharedPtrWrapper).operator->()->Toggle();
return 0;
}
Output:
current state 1
current state 0
current state 1
current state 0
current state 1
current state 0
Program ended with exit code: 0
To reiterate:
This code doesn't compile:
sharedPtrWrapper->Toggle();
How to make it compile?
Edit : I'm using a wrapper because I have no control over the MyInterface, I get it from a library, also shared_ptr<MyInterface> mySharedPointer = std::make_shared<MyInterface>(myInstance); doesn't compile, because of the missing pure virtual destructor from the above mentioned interface.
Edit2: Example library usage in pseudocode:
void firstcallbackFromLib(Framework *framework) {
MyInterface *myInstance = framework->getInstance();
{
Wrapper<MyInterface> wrapperS(myInstance);
std::shared_ptr<Wrapper<MyInterface>> sharedPtrWrapper = std::make_shared<Wrapper<MyInterface>>(wrapperS);
//assign sharedPtrWrapper and framework to static instances
}
}
void myFunction() {
sharedPtrWrapper->Toggle(); //this doesn't work, this is what i'm trying to achieve
sharedPtrWrapper->operator->()->Toggle(); //this ugly thing works
}
void lastUninitCallbackFromLibrary() {
MyInterface *p = sharedPtrWrapper.get()->getInner();
framework->releaseInterface(p);
//etc
}
The problem is, that shared_ptr behaves like a pointer and Wrapper does that as well. In summary, you have code that behaves like a pointer to a pointer. In short, you could call (*sharedPtrWrapper)->Toggle(); instead of the abomination sharedPtrWrapper->operator->()->Toggle();.
Careful though: It's unclear what all this is supposed to achieve, because the example code is just an abstraction of your actual code. So, maybe it would just be more elegant to put a forwarding Toggle() method into class Wrapper, but that's impossible to tell with the info provided here.
I am confused about the question. Why wrapper class that does nothing?
If you want to put a class inside shared pointer yet do something uncommon at destruction: like, calling dll's function that performs the destruction, do some preprocessing, perform file closure instead of delete, or do nothing at all if that's what you want. Then you can simply specify it at shared pointer instantiation:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/shared_ptr/shared_ptr - see construction option 5.
You don't need your wrapper at all.
shared_ptr<MyInterface> mySharedPointer = std::make_shared<MyInterface>();
wont work because MyInterface is an abstract class. But, just like you can do
MyInterface *myInstance = new A();
To have a MyInterface * that points to a concrete derived object, you can use
std::shared_ptr<MyInterface> sharedPtr = std::make_shared<A>();
To get a std::shared_ptr<MyInterface> that points to a concrete derived object. You can then use sharedPtr to access Toggle like
sharedPtr->Toggle();
You can see that working in this live example
sharedPtrWrapper->Toggle(); doesn't compile because of operator-> chaining rules explained well in this answer. In principle: if your object is NOT a pointer, operator-> is called recursively, if it is a pointer, member access is performed. Now std::shared_ptr has overloaded operator-> to access the raw Wrapper<MyInterface>* pointer kept inside and when it is applied on it, it tries to access Toggle, which does not exist.
For clarity note that this code also will not compile:
Wrapper<MyInterface>* wrapper = new Wrapper<MyInterface>(myInstance);
wrapper->Toggle();
You can do this however:
(*sharedPtrWrapper)->Toggle();
Use:
struct CleanupMyInterface {
SomeTypeFromLib* somePointerFromLib = nullptr;
void operator()( MyInterface* ptr ) const {
if (somePointerFromLib && ptr)
somePointerFromLib->releaseInterface(ptr);
}
};
std::shared_ptr<MyInterface> sharedPtr( CreateAnInstanceOfAFromLibrary(), CleanupMyInterface{somePointerFromLib} );
shared_ptr has type-erased destruction, there is no need for a virtual destructor.
If I create a class in c++, it is possible to call a function of an object of this class, even if this class does not exists.
For example:
Class:
class ExampleClass
{
private:
double m_data;
public:
void readSomeData(double param)
{
m_data = param;
}
}
Any function where this class is used:
int main()
{
ExampleClass* myClass;
myClass->readSomeData(2.5);
}
Ofcourse this wouldn't function, because myClass is not defined.
To avoid such situations, I check if ExampleClass objects are a null_ptr
example:
void readSomeData(double param)
{
if(this == null_ptr)
return;
m_data = param;
}
But gcc says:
'this' pointer cannot be null in well-defined C++ code; comparison may
be assumed to always avaluate to false.
Ofcourse that is only a warning, but I think it is not nice to have this warning. Is there a better way to check if the pointer of a class is defined?
Testing it in the class is the wrong way, the warning is correct about that if your code is well defined then this must not be null, so the test should happen at the time when you call the member function:
int main()
{
ExampleClass* myClass = nullptr; // always initialize a raw pointer to ensure
// that it does not point to a random address
// ....
if (myClass != nullptr) {
myClass->readSomeData(2.5);
}
return 0;
}
If a pointer must not be null at a certain part of your code then you should do it according to CppCoreGuideline: I.12: Declare a pointer that must not be null as not_null
Micorosoft provides an Guidelines Support Library that has an implementation for not_null.
Or if possible then don't use pointers at all but std::optional.
So a code setup could look like this:
#include <gsl/gsl>
struct ExampleClass {
void readSomeData(double ){}
};
// now it is clear that myClass must not and can not be null within work_with_class
// it still could hold an invalid pointe, but thats another problem
void work_with_class(gsl::not_null<ExampleClass*> myClass) {
myClass->readSomeData(2.5);
}
int main()
{
ExampleClass* myClass = nullptr; // always initialize a raw pointer to ensure
// that it does not point to a random address
// ....
work_with_class(myClass);
return 0;
}
The best way is not use pointers at all:
int main()
{
ExampleClass myClass;
myClass.readSomeData(2.5);
}
That way there's no need for any check, and in fact, checking this inside the function is moot.
If you need nullability, use std::optional instead.
Either don't use pointers as Bartek Banachewicz has pointed out, or properly initialize and check the pointer:
int main()
{
ExampleClass* myClass= 0;
if (myClass)
myClass->readSomeData(2.5);
return 0;
}
Of course you still have to add the instantiation of the object at some point, otherwise the code is nonsense.
Suppose I have an object with a member that is expensive to construct, and the need for a reset() function that resets it to its initial state:
struct Example
{
// option 1: efficient, but need to duplicate initialization logic of reset()
Example(int param) : expensive_member_(param), param_(param)
{
}
/* option 2: less code, but initializes expensive_member_ twice
Example(int param) : param_(param)
{
reset();
}*/
void reset()
{
expensive_member_ = ClassWithExpensiveConstructor(param_);
}
ClassWithExpensiveConstructor expensive_member_;
int param_;
}
Is there a better way of/pattern for efficiently resetting the object to its initial state without duplicating the initialization logic in the initializer list and the reset function?
edit: If there is no generic way of achieving what I want, that is also an acceptable outcome of this question!
You can make your ExpensiveMember a pointer, in such case your option 2 will not call ExpensiveMember constructor in Example constructor unless you explicitly call it:
struct Example
{
Example(int param) : expensive_member_(), param_(param)
{
reset();
}
~Example() {
delete expensive_member_; // better use unique_ptr etc
}
// Also a copy constructor and assignment operator
// are needed to avoid memory problems such as double-delete.
// Also, better use unique_ptr etc.
// This answer does not use unique_ptr just to make the main idea more clear.
void reset()
{
delete expensive_member_; // better use unique_ptr etc
expensive_member_ = new ClassWithExpensiveConstructor(param_);
}
ClassWithExpensiveConstructor* expensive_member_; // better use unique_ptr etc
int param_;
}
If ClassWithExpensiveConstructor is the one class whose construction/reset is expensive, it should be it which optimizes the operation.
Another option would be to keep a copy of the initial value in a const member, assuming that copy construction/assignment is not expensive. That would use more memory, but improve performance if you happen to call Example::reset() a lot.
struct Example
{
Example(int param)
: expensive_member_backup_(param)
, expensive_member_(expensive_mamber_backup)
, param_(param)
{
}
void reset()
{
expensive_member_ = expensive_member_backup_;
}
const ClassWithExpensiveConstructor expensive_member_backup_;
ClassWithExpensiveConstructor expensive_member_;
int param_;
}
A simple solution would be to use a (smart or regular) pointer, so that the cost of initializing the member (i.e. the pointer) becomes smaller, and the actual object is only initialized in the call to reset():
struct Example
{
Example(int param) : param_(param)
{
reset();
}
void reset()
{
p.reset(new ClassWithExpensiveConstructor(param_));
}
unique_ptr<ClassWithExpensiveConstructor> p;
int param_;
}
Basically i need to do reference counting on certain resources (like an integer index) that are not inmediately equivalent to a pointer/address semantic; basically i need to pass around the resource around, and call certain custom function when the count reaches zero. Also the way to read/write access to the resource is not a simple pointer derreference operation but something more complex. I don't think boost::shared_ptr will fit the bill here, but maybe i'm missing some other boost equivalent class i might use?
example of what i need to do:
struct NonPointerResource
{
NonPointerResource(int a) : rec(a) {}
int rec;
}
int createResource ()
{
data BasicResource("get/resource");
boost::shared_resource< MonPointerResource > r( BasicResource.getId() ,
boost::function< BasicResource::RemoveId >() );
TypicalUsage( r );
}
//when r goes out of scope, it will call BasicResource::RemoveId( NonPointerResource& ) or something similar
int TypicalUsage( boost::shared_resource< NonPointerResource > r )
{
data* d = access_object( r );
// do something with d
}
Allocate NonPointerResource on the heap and just give it a destructor as normal.
Maybe boost::intrusive_ptr could fit the bill. Here's a RefCounted base class and ancillary functions that I'm using in some of my code. Instead of delete ptr you can specify whatever operation you need.
struct RefCounted {
int refCount;
RefCounted() : refCount(0) {}
virtual ~RefCounted() { assert(refCount==0); }
};
// boost::intrusive_ptr expects the following functions to be defined:
inline
void intrusive_ptr_add_ref(RefCounted* ptr) { ++ptr->refCount; }
inline
void intrusive_ptr_release(RefCounted* ptr) { if (!--ptr->refCount) delete ptr; }
With that in place you can then have
boost::intrusive_ptr<DerivedFromRefCounted> myResource = ...
Here
is a small example about the use of shared_ptr<void> as a counted handle.
Preparing proper create/delete functions enables us to use
shared_ptr<void> as any resource handle in a sense.
However, as you can see, since this is weakly typed, the use of it causes us
inconvenience in some degree...
Here is my issue.
I have a class to create timed events. It takes in:
A function pointer of void (*func)(void* arg)
A void* to the argument
A delay
The issue is I may want to create on-the-fly variables that I dont want to be a static variable in the class, or a global variable. If either of these are not met, I cant do something like:
void doStuff(void *arg)
{
somebool = *(bool*)arg;
}
void makeIt()
{
bool a = true;
container->createTimedEvent(doStuff,(void*)&a,5);
}
That wont work because the bool gets destroyed when the function returns. So I'd have to allocate these on the heap. The issue then becomes, who allocates and who deletes. what I'd like to do is to be able to take in anything, then copy its memory and manage it in the timed event class. But I dont think I can do memcpy since I dont know the tyoe.
What would be a good way to acheive this where the time event is responsible for memory managment.
Thanks
I do not use boost
class AguiTimedEvent {
void (*onEvent)(void* arg);
void* argument;
AguiWidgetBase* caller;
double timeStamp;
public:
void call() const;
bool expired() const;
AguiWidgetBase* getCaller() const;
AguiTimedEvent();
AguiTimedEvent(void(*Timefunc)(void* arg),void* arg, double timeSec, AguiWidgetBase* caller);
};
void AguiWidgetContainer::handleTimedEvents()
{
for(std::vector<AguiTimedEvent>::iterator it = timedEvents.begin(); it != timedEvents.end();)
{
if(it->expired())
{
it->call();
it = timedEvents.erase(it);
}
else
it++;
}
}
void AguiWidgetBase::createTimedEvent( void (*func)(void* data),void* data,double timeInSec )
{
if(!getWidgetContainer())
return;
getWidgetContainer()->addTimedEvent(AguiTimedEvent(func,data,timeInSec,this));
}
void AguiWidgetContainer::addTimedEvent( const AguiTimedEvent &timedEvent )
{
timedEvents.push_back(timedEvent);
}
Why would you not use boost::shared_ptr?
It offers storage duration you require since an underlying object will be destructed only when all shared_ptrs pointing to it will have been destructed.
Also it offers full thread safety.
Using C++0x unique_ptr is perfect for the job. This is a future standard, but unique_ptr is already supported under G++ and Visual Studio. For C++98 (current standard), auto_ptr works like a harder to use version of unique_ptr... For C++ TR1 (implemented in Visual Studio and G++), you can use std::tr1::shared_ptr.
Basically, you need a smart pointer. Here's how unique_ptr would work:
unique_ptr<bool> makeIt(){ // More commonly, called a "source"
bool a = true;
container->createTimedEvent(doStuff,(void*)&a,5);
return new unique_ptr<bool>(a)
}
When you use the code later...
void someFunction(){
unique_ptr<bool> stuff = makeIt();
} // stuff is deleted here, because unique_ptr deletes
// things when they leave their scope
You can also use it as a function "sink"
void sink(unique_ptr<bool> ptr){
// Use the pointer somehow
}
void somewhereElse(){
unique_ptr<bool> stuff = makeIt();
sink(stuff);
// stuff is now deleted! Stuff points to null now
}
Aside from that, you can use unique_ptr like a normal pointer, aside from the strange movement rules. There are many smart pointers, unique_ptr is just one of them. shared_ptr is implemented in both Visual Studio and G++ and is the more typical ptr. I personally like to use unique_ptr as often as possible however.
If you can't use boost or tr1, then what I'd do is write my own function that behaves like auto_ptr. In fact that's what I've done on a project here that doesn't have any boost or tr1 access. When all of the events who care about the data are done with it it automatically gets deleted.
You can just change your function definition to take in an extra parameter that represents the size of the object passed in. Then just pass the size down. So your new function declarations looks like this:
void (*func)(void* arg, size_t size)
void doStuff(void *arg, size_t size)
{
somebool = *(bool*)arg;
memcpy( arg, myStorage, size );
}
void makeIt()
{
bool a = true;
container->createTimedEvent(doStuff,(void*)&a,sizeof(bool), 5);
}
Then you can pass variables that are still on the stack and memcpy them in the timed event class. The only problem is that you don't know the type any more... but that's what happens when you cast to void*
Hope that helps.
You should re-work your class to use inheritance, not a function pointer.
class AguiEvent {
virtual void Call() = 0;
virtual ~AguiEvent() {}
};
class AguiTimedEvent {
std::auto_ptr<AguiEvent> event;
double timeSec;
AguiWidgetBase* caller;
public:
AguiTimedEvent(std::auto_ptr<AguiEvent> ev, double time, AguiWidgetBase* base)
: event(ev)
, timeSec(time)
, caller(base) {}
void call() { event->Call(); }
// All the rest of it
};
void MakeIt() {
class someclass : AguiEvent {
bool MahBool;
public:
someclass() { MahBool = false; }
void Call() {
// access to MahBool through this.
}
};
something->somefunc(AguiTimedEvent(new someclass())); // problem solved
}