## some c++11 standard library notes

Some notes on Chapter 31, 32 (standard library, STL) of Stroustrup’s “The C++ Programming Language, 4th edition”.

## Emplace

I’d never heard the word emplace before, but it turns out that it isn’t a word made up for c++, but is also a dictionary word, meaning to “put into place or position”.

c++11 defines some emplace functions. Here’s an example for vector

#include <vector>
#include <iostream>

int main()
{
using pair = std::pair<int, int> ;
using vector = std::vector< pair > ;

vector v ;

pair p{ 1, 2 } ;
v.push_back( p ) ;
v.push_back( {2, 3} ) ;
v.emplace_back( 3, 4 ) ;

for ( auto e : v )
{
std::cout << e.first << ", " << e.second << '\n' ;
}

return 0 ;
}


The emplace_back is like the push_back function, but does not require that a constructed object be created first, either explicitly as in the object p above, or implictly as done with the {2, 3} pair initializer list.

## multimap

I’d written some perl code the other day when I wanted a hash that had multiple entries per key. Since my hashed elememts were simple, I just strung them together as comma separated entries (I could have also used a hash of array references). It looks like c++11 builds exactly the construct that I wanted into STL, and has both a multimap and unordered_multimap. Here’s an example of the latter

#include <unordered_map>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>

int main()
{
std::unordered_multimap< int, std::string > m ;

m.emplace( 3, "hi" ) ;
m.emplace( 3, "bye" ) ;
m.emplace( 4, "wow" ) ;

for ( auto & v : m )
{
std::cout << v.first << ": " << v.second << '\n' ;
}

for ( auto f{ m.find(3) } ; f != m.end() ; ++f )
{
std::cout << "find: " << f->first << ": " << f->second << '\n' ;
}

return 0 ;
}


Running this gives me

$./a.out 4: wow 3: hi 3: bye find: 3: hi find: 3: bye  Observe how nice auto is here. I don’t have to care what the typename for the unordered_multimap find result is. According to gdb that type is: (gdb) whatis f type = std::__1::__hash_map_iterator<std::__1::__hash_iterator<std::__1::__hash_node<std::__1::__hash_value_type<int, std::__1::basic_string<char> >, void*>*> >  Yikes! ## STL The STL chapter outlines lots of different algorithms. One new powerful feature in c++11 is that the Lambdas can be used instead of predicate function objects, which is so much cleaner. I used that capability in a scientific computing programming assignment earlier this year with partial_sort. The find_if_not algorthim caught my eye, because I just manually coded exactly that sort of loop translating intel assembly that used ‘REPL SCASB’ instructions, and that code was precisely of this find_if_not form. The c++ equivalent of the assembly was roughly of the following form: int scan3( const std::string & s, char v ) { auto p = s.begin() ; for ( ; p != s.end() ; p++ ) { if ( *p != v ) { break ; } } if ( p == s.end() ) { return 0 ; } else { std::cout << "diff: " << p - s.begin() << '\n' ; return ( v > *p ) ? 1 : -1 ; }  Range for can also be used for this loop, but it is only slightly clearer: int scan2( const std::string & s, char v ) { auto p = s.begin() ; for ( auto c : s ) { if ( c != v ) { break ; } p++ ; } if ( p == s.end() ) { return 0 ; } else { std::cout << "diff: " << p - s.begin() << '\n' ; return ( v > *p ) ? 1 : -1 ; } }  An STL version of this loop that uses a lambda predicate is int scan( const std::string & s, char v ) { auto i = find_if_not( s.begin(), s.end(), [ v ]( char c ){ return c == v ; } ) ; if ( i == s.end() ) { return 0 ; } else { std::cout << "diff: " << i - s.begin() << '\n' ; return ( v > *i ) ? 1 : -1 ; } }  I don’t really think that this is any more clear than explicit for loop versions. All give the same results when tried: int main() { std::vector< std::function< int( const std::string &, char ) > > v { scan, scan2, scan3 } ; for ( auto f : v ) { int r0 = f( "nnnnn", 'n' ) ; int rp = f( "nnnnnmmm", 'n' ) ; int rn = f( "nnnnnpnn", 'n' ) ; std::cout << r0 << '\n' ; std::cout << rp << '\n' ; std::cout << rn << '\n' ; } return 0 ; }  The compiler does almost the same for all three implementations. With the cout’s removed, and compiling with optimization, the respective instruction counts are: (gdb) p 0xee3-0xe70$1 = 115
(gdb) p 0xf4c-0xef0
$2 = 92 (gdb) p 0xfc3-0xf50$3 = 115


The listings for the STL and the C style for loop are almost the same. The Apple xcode 7 compiler seems to produce slightly more compact code for the range-for version of this function for reasons that are not obvious to me.

## c++11 virtual function language changes.

Chapter 20 of Stroustrup’s book covers a few more new (to me) c++11 features:

1. override
2. final
3. use of using statements for access control.
4. pointer to member (for data and member functions)

## override

The override keyword is really just to make it clear when you are providing a virtual function override.  Because the use of virtual at an override point is redundant, people have used that to explicitly show that the intent is to show the function overrides a base class function. However, if the have the interface erroneously different in the second specification, the use of virtual there means that you are defining a new virtual function.  Here’s a made up example, where the integer type of a virtual function was changed “accidentally” when “overriding” a base class virtual function:

#include <stdio.h>

struct x
{
virtual void foo( int v ) ;
} ;

struct y : public x
{
virtual void foo( long v ) ;
} ;

void x::foo( int v ) { printf( "x::foo:%d\n", v ) ; }
void y::foo( long v ) { printf( "y::foo:%ld\n", v ) ; }


Now in c++11 you can be explicit that you intention is to override a base class virtual. Replace the use of the redundant virtual with the override keyword, and the compiler can now tell you if you get things mixed up:

struct x
{
virtual void foo( int v ) ;
} ;

struct y : public x
{
void foo( long v ) override ;
} ;

void x::foo( int v )
{
printf( "x::foo:%d\n", v ) ;
}

void y::foo( long v )
{
printf( "y::foo:%ld\n", v ) ;
}


This gives a nice compiler message informing you about the error:

$c++ -std=c++11 -O2 -MMD -c -o d.o d.cc d.cc:10:23: error: non-virtual member function marked 'override' hides virtual member function void foo( long v ) override ; ^ d.cc:5:17: note: hidden overloaded virtual function 'x::foo' declared here: type mismatch at 1st parameter ('int' vs 'long') virtual void foo( int v ) ; ^  ## final This is a second virtual function modifier designed to cut the performance cost of using virtual functions in some situations. My experimentation with this feature shows the compilers still have more work to do optimizing away the vtable calls. I introduced a square-matrix class that had a single range virtual range checking function:  void throwRangeError( const indexType i, const indexType j ) const { throw rangeError{ i, j, size } ; } /** Introduce a virtual function that allows user selection of optional range error checking. */ virtual void handleRangeError( const indexType i, const indexType j ) const { throwRangeError( i, j ) ; } bool areIndexesOutOfRange( const indexType i, const indexType j ) const { if ( (0 == i) or (0 == j) or (i > size) or (j > size) ) { return true ; } return false ; }  My intent was that a derived class could provide a no-op specialization of handleRangeError: /** Explicitly unchecked matrix element access */ class uncheckedMatrix : public matrix { public: // inherit constructors: using matrix::matrix ; void handleRangeError( const indexType i, const indexType j ) const final { } } ;  This derived class no longer has any virtual functions. Also note that it uses ‘using’ statements to explicitly inherit the base class constructors, which is not a default action (and recommended by Stroustrup only for classes like this that do not add any data members). The compiler didn’t do too well with this specialization, as calls to the element access operator still took a vtable hit. Here’s some code that when passed a 3×3 matrix object includes out of range accesses: void outofbounds( const matrix & m, const char * s ) { printf( "%s: %g\n", s, m(4,2) ) ; } void outofbounds( const checkedMatrix & m, const char * s ) { printf( "%s: %g\n", s, m(4,2) ) ; } void outofbounds( const uncheckedMatrix & m, const char * s ) noexcept { printf( "%s: %g\n", s, m(4,2) ) ; }  Here’s the code for the first (base class) matrix class that has virtual functions, but no final overrides: 0000000000000000 <outofbounds(matrix const&, char const*)>: 0: push %rbp 1: mov %rsp,%rbp 4: push %r14 6: push %rbx 7: mov %rsi,%r14 a: mov %rdi,%rbx d: mov 0x20(%rbx),%rax 11: cmp$0x3,%rax
15: ja     2d <outofbounds(matrix const&, char const*)+0x2d>
17: mov    (%rbx),%rax
1a: mov    $0x4,%esi 1f: mov$0x2,%edx
24: mov    %rbx,%rdi
27: callq  *(%rax)
29: mov    0x20(%rbx),%rax
2d: lea    (%rax,%rax,2),%rax
31: mov    0x8(%rbx),%rcx
35: movsd  0x8(%rcx,%rax,8),%xmm0
3b: lea    0x149(%rip),%rdi        # 18b <__clang_call_terminate+0xb>
3e: DISP32  .cstring-0x18b
42: mov    $0x1,%al 44: mov %r14,%rsi 47: pop %rbx 48: pop %r14 4a: pop %rbp 4b: jmpq 50 <outofbounds(checkedMatrix const&, char const*)> 4c: BRANCH32 printf  The callq instruction is the vtable call. Because this function called through the base class object, and could represent a derived class object, such a call is required. Now look at the code for the uncheckedMatrix class where the handleRangeError() had a no-op final override: 00000000000000a0 <outofbounds(uncheckedMatrix const&, char const*)>: a0: push %rbp a1: mov %rsp,%rbp a4: push %r14 a6: push %rbx a7: mov %rsi,%r14 aa: mov %rdi,%rbx ad: mov 0x20(%rbx),%rax b1: cmp$0x3,%rax
b5: ja     d0 <outofbounds(uncheckedMatrix const&, char const*)+0x30>
b7: mov    (%rbx),%rax
ba: mov    (%rax),%rax
bd: mov    $0x4,%esi c2: mov$0x2,%edx
c7: mov    %rbx,%rdi
ca: callq  *%rax
cc: mov    0x20(%rbx),%rax
d0: lea    (%rax,%rax,2),%rax
...


We still have an unnecessary vtable call. This must be a call to handleRangeError(), but that has a final override, and could conceivably be inlined. Some experimentation shows that it is possible to get the desired behaviour (Apple LLVM version 7.3.0 (clang-703.0.31)), but only when the final call is a leaf function. Explicit override of the base class element access operator to omit the check-and-throw logic

/**
Explicitly unchecked matrix element access
*/
class uncheckedMatrix2 : public matrix
{
public:
// inherit constructors:
using matrix::matrix ;

T operator()( const indexType i, const indexType j ) const
{
return access( i, j ) ;
}
} ;


has much less horrible code

0000000000000100 <outofbounds(uncheckedMatrix2 const&, char const*)>:
100: push   %rbp
101: mov    %rsp,%rbp
104: mov    0x8(%rdi),%rax
108: mov    0x20(%rdi),%rcx
10c: lea    (%rcx,%rcx,2),%rcx
110: movsd  0x8(%rax,%rcx,8),%xmm0
116: lea    0x6e(%rip),%rdi        # 18b <__clang_call_terminate+0xb>
119: DISP32 .cstring-0x18b
11d: mov    $0x1,%al 11f: pop %rbp 120: jmpq 125 <outofbounds(uncheckedMatrix2 const&, char const*)+0x25> 121: BRANCH32 printf 125: data16 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)  Now we don’t have any of the vtable related epilog and prologue code, nor the indirection required to make such a call. This code isn’t pretty, but isn’t actually that much worse than raw pointer or plain vector access: void outofbounds( const std::vector<double> m, const char * s ) noexcept { printf( "%s: %g\n", s, m[ 4*3+2-1 ] ) ; } void outofbounds( const double * m, const char * s ) noexcept { printf( "%s: %g\n", s, m[ 4*3+2-1 ] ) ; }  The first generates code like the following: 0000000000000130 <outofbounds(std::__1::vector<double, std::__1::allocator<double> >, char const*)>: 130: push %rbp 131: mov %rsp,%rbp 134: mov (%rdi),%rax 137: movsd 0x68(%rax),%xmm0 13c: lea 0x48(%rip),%rdi # 18b <__clang_call_terminate+0xb> 13f: DISP32 .cstring-0x18b 143: mov$0x1,%al
145: pop    %rbp
146: jmpq   14b <outofbounds(std::__1::vector<double, std::__1::allocator<double> >, char const*)+0x1b>
147: BRANCH32  printf
14b: nopl   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)


Using vector instead of raw array access imposes only a single instruction dereference penalty:

0000000000000150 <outofbounds(double const*, char const*)>:
150: push   %rbp
151: mov    %rsp,%rbp
154: movsd  0x68(%rdi),%xmm0
159: lea    0x2b(%rip),%rdi        # 18b <__clang_call_terminate+0xb>
15c: DISP32 .cstring-0x18b
160: mov    $0x1,%al 162: pop %rbp 163: jmpq 168 <GCC_except_table2> 164: BRANCH32 printf  With the final override in a leaf function, or a similar explicit hiding of the base class function, we add one additional instruction overhead (one additional load). ## pointer to member This is a somewhat obscure feature. I don’t think that it is new to c++11, but I’ve never seen it used in 20 years. The only thing interesting about it is that the pointer to member objects apparently are entirely offset based, so could be used in shared memory interprocess configurations (where virtual functions cannot!) ## Example of writing a class that implements c++11 range based for helpers If a class provides begin and end functions returning iterator objects, and that iterator has a != operator, then the class can be used in a range based for. Here’s an example that allows for iterating over all the bits in an integer. For example, suppose that 0b10101010 is a representation of the set: 128, 32, 8, 2 or 1<<7, 1<<5, 1<<3, 1<<1 We can iterate over the set with a set of bit shifts, and use the following setup to do so class bititer { unsigned bset ; int cur{} ; public: bititer( const unsigned b ) : bset{ b } { } bititer & operator++() { bset >>= 1 ; cur++ ; return *this ; } unsigned operator*() { unsigned v{} ; if ( bset & 1 ) { v = ( 1 << cur ) ; } return v ; } bool operator !=( const bititer & b ) { return ( bset != b.bset ) ; } } ;  Iteration can now be done once a container adapter that provides the begin and end functions is implemented: struct bitset { unsigned bits ; bititer begin() { return bititer{ bits } ; } bititer end() { return bititer{ 0 } ; } } ; int main() { for ( auto v : bitset{ 0b10101010 } ) { std::cout << v << "\n" ; } return 0 ; }  Note that the 0b10101010 syntax is from c++14, not c++11. ## Stroustrup reading notes: delagating constructors, default, delete, move, literals Here’s more notes from reading Stroustrup’s “The C++ Programming Language, 4th edition” ## Alternate construction methods I’d seen the new inline member initialization syntax that can be used to avoid (or simplify) explicit constructors. For example, instead of struct physical { double c ; ///< wave speed double tau ; ///< damping time double x1 ; ///< left most x value double x2 ; ///< right most x value /** set physical parameters to some defaults */ physical() ; } ; physical::physical() : c{ 1.0 }, tau{ 20.0 }, x1{ -26.0 }, x2{ +26.0 } { }  You can do struct physical { double c{ 1.0 } ; ///< wave speed double tau{ 20.0 } ; ///< damping time double x1{ -26.0 } ; ///< left most x value double x2{ +26.0 } ; ///< right most x value } ;  Much less code to write, and you can keep things all in one place. I wondered if this could be combined with constexpr, but the only way I could get that to work was to use static members, which also have to have an explicit definition (at least on Mac) to avoid a link error: struct p2 { static constexpr double x2{ +26.0 } ; ///< right most x value } ; constexpr double p2::x2 ; int main() { p2 p ; return p.x2 ; }  But that is a digression. What I wanted to mention is that, while member initialization is cool, there’s more in the C++11 constructor simplification toolbox. We can write a constructor that builds on the member constructors (if any), but we can also make constructor specialations just call other constructors (called a delegating constructor), like so struct physical { double c{ 1.0 } ; ///< wave speed double tau{ 20.0 } ; ///< damping time double x1{ -26.0 } ; ///< left most x value double x2{ +26.0 } ; ///< right most x value physical( const double cv ) : c{cv} {} physical( const double x1v, const double x2v ) : x1{x1v}, x2{x2v} {} physical( const double cv, const int m ) : physical{cv} { c *= m ; } ; } ;  Stroustrup points out that the object is considered initialized by the time the delegating constructor is called. So if that throws, we shouldn’t get to the body of the constructor function #include <iostream> struct physical { double c{ 1.0 } ; ///< wave speed physical( const double cv ) { throw 3 ; } physical( const double cv, const int m ) : physical{cv} { std::cout << "won't get here\n" ; } } ; int main() try { physical p{5} ; return 0 ; } catch (...) { return 1 ; }  ## default functions If we define a structure with an explicit constructor with parameters, then unless explicit action is taken, this means that we no longer get a default constructor. Example: #include <string> struct F { std::string s{} ; F( int n ) : s( n, 'a' ) {} } ; F x ;  This results in errors because the default constructor has been deleted by defining an explicit constructor $ c++ -o d -std=c++11 d.cc
d.cc:10:3: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'F'
F x ;
^
d.cc:7:4: note: candidate constructor not viable: requires single argument 'n', but no arguments were provided
F( int n ) : s( n, 'a' ) {}
^
d.cc:3:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit move constructor) not viable: requires 1 argument, but 0 were provided
struct F
^
d.cc:3:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit copy constructor) not viable: requires 1 argument, but 0 were provided
1 error generated.


We can get back the default constructor, without having to write it out explictly, by just doing:

#include <string>

struct F
{
std::string s{} ;

F( int n ) : s( n, 'a' ) {}

F() = default ;
} ;

F x ;


It wouldn’t be a big deal to define an explicit default constructor above, just

    F() : s{} {}


but for a more complex class, being able to let the compiler do the work is nicer. Using = default also
means that the redundancy of specifying a member initializer and also having to specify the same initializer
in the default constructor member list is not required, which is nicer.

Note that like ‘= default’, you can use ‘= delete’ to tell the compiler not to generate any default for the member (or template specialization, …) if it would have if left unrestricted. This is similar to the trick of making destructors private:

class foo
{
~foo() ;
public:
// ...
} ;


Instead in c++11, you can write

class foo
{
public:
~foo() = delete ;
// ...
} ;


so instead of the compiler telling you there is unsufficent access to call the destructor, it should be able to tell you that an attempt to use a destructor for a class that has not defined one has been attempted. Note that this can be an explicitly deleted destructor, or one implicitly deleted (see below).

## move operations

Back in university I once wrote a matrix class that I was proud of. It was reference counted to avoid really expensive assignment and copy construction operations, which were particularily bad for any binary operation that returned a new value

template <class T>
matrix<T> operator + ( const matrix<T> & a, const matrix<T> & b ) ;


C implementations of an addition operation (like the blas functions), wouldn’t do anything this dumb. Instead they use an interface like

template <class T>
void matrixadd( matrix<T> & r, const matrix<T> & a, const matrix<T> & b ) ;


This doesn’t have the syntactic sugar, but the performance won’t suck as it would if reference counting wasn’t used. I recall having a lot of trouble getting the reference counting just right, and had to instrument all my copy constructors, assignment operators and destructors with trace logging to get it all right. Right also depended on the compiler that was being used! I’ve still got a copy of that code kicking around somewhere, but it can stay where it is out of sight since move operations obsolete it all.

With move constructor and assignment operators, I was suprised to see them not kick in. These were the move operations

/// A simple square matrix skeleton, with instrumented copy, move, construction and destruction operators
class matrix
{
using T = int ;                  ///< allow for easy future templatization.

size_t            m_rows ;       ///< number of rows for the matrix.  May be zero.
size_t            m_columns ;    ///< number of columns for the matrix.  May be zero.
std::vector<T>    m_elem ;       ///< backing store for the matrix elements, stored in row major format.

public:

/// move constructor to create
matrix( matrix && m )
: m_rows{ m.m_rows }
, m_columns{ m.m_columns }
, m_elem{ std::move(m.m_elem) }
{
m.m_rows = 0 ;
m.m_columns = 0 ;
//std::cout << "move construction: " << &m << " to " << this << " ; dimensions: (rows, columns, size) = ( " << rows() << ", " << columns() << ", " << m_elem.size() << " )\n" ;
}

/// move assignment operator.
matrix & operator = ( matrix && m )
{
//std::cout << "move operator=(): " << this << '\n' ;

std::swap( m_columns, m.m_columns ) ;
std::swap( m_rows, m.m_rows ) ;
std::swap( m_elem, m.m_elem ) ;

return *this ;
}

/// Create (dense) square matrix with the specified diagonal elements.
matrix( const std::initializer_list<T> & diagonals )

//...
} ;


With the following code driving this

matrix f() ;

int m1()
{
matrix x1 = f() ;
matrix x2 { f() } ;

return x1.rows() + x2.rows() ;
}


I was suprised to see none of my instrumentation showing for the move operations. That appears to be because the compiler is doing return value optimization, and constructing these in place in the stack storage locations of &x1, and &x2.

To get actual move construction, I have to explicitly ask for move, as in

matrix mg( {4, 5, 6} ) ;

int m0()
{
matrix x2 { std::move( mg ) } ;

return x2.rows() ;
}


and to get move assignment I could assign into a variable passed by reference, like

void g( matrix & m )
{
m = matrix( {1,2,3} ) ;
}


This resulted in a stack allocation for the diagonal matrix construction, then a move from that. For this assignment, the compiler did not have to be instructed to use a move operation (and the function was coded explicitly to prevent return value optimization from kicking in).

Note that if any of a copy, move, or destructor is defined for the class, a standards compliant compiler is supposed to also not generate any default copy, move or destructor for the class (i.e. having any such function, means that all the others are =delete unless explicitly defined).

In a table of overloadable operators I see two weird ones:

• ,
• ->*

I’d never have imagined that there would be a valid reason to overload the comma operator, which I’ve only seen used in old style C macros that predated C99’s inline support. For example you could do

#define foo(x)    (f(x), g(x))


which might be equivalent to, say,

static inline int foo( int x )
{
f( x ) ;

return g(x) ;
}


However, sure enough a comma overloaded function is possible:

struct foo
{
int m ;

foo( int v = {} ) : m{v} {}

int blah( ) const
{
return m + 3 ;
}

int operator,(const foo & f)
{
return blah() + f.blah() ;
}
} ;

int main()
{
foo f ;
foo g{ 7 } ;

return f, g ;
}


This results in 7 + 0 + 3 + 3 = 13 as a return code. I don’t have any intention of exploiting this overloadable operator in any real code that I am going to write.

What is the ->* operation that can also be overloaded.

## User defined literals

C++11 allows for user defined literal suffixes for constant creation, so that you could write something like

length v = 1.0009_m + 3_dm + 5.0_cm + 7_mm ;


User defined literals must begin with underscore. The system defined literals (such as the complex i, and the chrono ns from c++14) do have this underscore restriction. This is opposite to the user requirement that states no non-system code should define underscore or double-underscore prefixed symbols. I found getting the syntax right for such literals was a bit finicky. The constructor has to be constexpr, and you have to explicitly use long double or unsigned long long types in the operator parameters, as in

struct length
{
double len {} ;

constexpr length( double v ) : len{ v } {}
} ;

inline length operator + ( const length a, const length b )
{
return length( a.len + b.len ) ;
}

constexpr length operator "" _m( long double v )
{
return length{ static_cast<double>(v) } ;
}

constexpr length operator "" _dm( long double v )
{
return length{ static_cast<double>(v/10.0) } ;
}

constexpr length operator "" _cm( long double v )
{
return length{ static_cast<double>(v/100.0) } ;
}

constexpr length operator "" _mm( long double v )
{
return length{ static_cast<double>(v/1000.0) } ;
}

constexpr length operator "" _m( unsigned long long v )
{
return length{ static_cast<double>(v) } ;
}

constexpr length operator "" _dm( unsigned long long v )
{
return length{ static_cast<double>(v/10.0) } ;
}

constexpr length operator "" _cm( unsigned long long v )
{
return length{ static_cast<double>(v/100.0) } ;
}

constexpr length operator "" _mm( unsigned long long v )
{
return length{ static_cast<double>(v/1000.0) } ;
}


## string literals

It’s mentioned in the book that one can use an s suffix for string literals so that they have std::string type. However, what isn’t stated is that this requires both c++14 and the use of the std::literals namespace. The following illustrates how this feature can be used

#include <string>
#include <iostream>

static_assert( __cplusplus >= 201402L, "require c++14 for string literal suffix" ) ;

using namespace std::literals ;

int main()
{
std::string hi { "hi\n" } ;
hi += "there"s + "\n" ;

std::cout << hi ;

return 0 ;
}


Note that without the literal s suffix in the string concatonation, as in

   hi += "there" + "\n" ;


This produces an error:

$make c++ -o d -std=c++14 d.cc d.cc:11:18: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('const char *' and 'const char *') hi += "there" + "\n" ; ~~~~~~~ ^ ~~~~ 1 error generated. make: *** [d] Error 1  The language isn’t designed to know to promote the right hand side elements to std::string just because they are being assigned to such a type. The use of either the string literal suffix, or an explicit conversion is required, as in hi += std::string{"there"} + "\n" ;  ## More C++11 notes from reading Stroustrup: nothrow, try, inline & unnamed namespace, initialized new Here’s more notes from reading Stroustrup’s “The C++ Programming Language, 4th edition” ## throw() as noexcept equivalent throw() without any exception types can be used as an equivalent to the new noexcept keyword. Stroustrup also mentions that explicit throw() clauses void foo() throw( e1, e2 ) ;  haven’t worked out well in practise, and is deprecated. ## try scopes as function body It turns out that try clauses can be used as function bodies, as in void foo( void ) try { } catch ( ... ) { }  This can also be done for constructor and destructor bodies as in X::X( T1 v, T2 w ) try{ : f1( v ) , f2( w ) } catch ( ... ) { }  so that a throw in the class field member construction can also be caught. ## Inline (default) namespace There is a mechanism for namespace versioning. Suppose that you want a new V2 namespace to be the default, you can do: namespace myproject { inline namespace V2 { struct X { int x ; int y ; } ; void foo( const X & ) ; } namespace V1 { struct X { int x ; } ; void foo( const X & ) ; } }  Existing callers of the library that are using V1 interfaces can continue to work unmodified, but new callers will use the V2::X and V2::foo interfaces, and the library can provide both interfaces, one for compatibility and another for new code: void myproject::V2::foo( const myproject::V2::X & ) { // ... } void myproject::V1::foo( const myproject::V1::X & ) { // ... }  ## Unnamed namespaces. I’d once seen unnamed namespaces as a modern C++ (more general) replacement for static functions. To see if such namespace functions are optimized away in the same fashion as a static function, I tried #include <stdio.h> namespace { void foo() { printf( "ns:foo\n" ) ; } } int main() { foo() ; return 0 ; }  This example uses printf and not std::cout because I wanted to look at the assembly listing and cout’s listing, at least on a mac, was completely abysmal. foo() was optimized away, but that’s a lot easier to see in the C printf listing: $ make
c++ -o n -std=c++11 -O2 n.cc

$otool -tV n | less n: (__TEXT,__text) section _main: 0000000100000f70 pushq %rbp 0000000100000f71 movq %rsp, %rbp 0000000100000f74 leaq 0x2b(%rip), %rdi ## literal pool for: "ns:foo" 0000000100000f7b callq 0x100000f84 ## symbol stub for: _puts 0000000100000f80 xorl %eax, %eax 0000000100000f82 popq %rbp 0000000100000f83 retq  ## at_quick_exit There’s now also a mechanism to exit and avoid global destructors and atexit routines from being evaluated. Here’s an example #include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> extern "C" void normalexit() { std::cout << "normalexit\n" ; } extern "C" void quickCexit() { std::cout << "quickCexit\n" ; } void quickCPPexit() { std::cout << "quickCPPexit\n" ; } class X { public: ~X() { std::cout << "X::~X()\n" ; } } x ; int main( int argc, char ** argv ) { atexit( normalexit ) ; std::at_quick_exit( quickCexit ) ; std::at_quick_exit( quickCPPexit ) ; if ( argc == 1 ) { std::quick_exit( 3 ) ; } when run without arguments (argc == 1), we get$ ./at
quickCPPexit
quickCexit


whereas if the normal exit processing is allowed to complete we see global destructors and regular atexit calls

$./at 1 normalexit X::~X()  Observe, unlike atexit, which can only (portably) take extern “C” defined functions, at_quick_exit can take functions with both C and C++ linkage. ## Enum default It was not obvious to me what the default value for an enum class (or enum) should be (the first value, an invalid value, zero, …)? It turns out that the default is zero, as printed by the following fragment #include <iostream> enum class x { v = 1, w } ; enum y { vv = 1, ww } ; int main() { x e1 = {} ; y e2 = {} ; std::cout << (int)e1 << '\n' ; std::cout << e2 << '\n' ; return 0 ; }  Note that an explicit cast is required for enum class values, but not for enum, which are by default, int convertible. ## default initialization with new The uniform initializer syntax can also be used with new calls. Here’s an example with uninitialized and default initialized double allocations #include <stdio.h> int main() { double * d1 = new double ; double * d2 = new double{} ; printf( "%g %g\n", *d1, *d2 ) ; return 0 ; }  Observe that we get nice garbage values for *d1, but *d2 is always 0.0: $ ./d
-1.49167e-154 0
$./d 0 0$ ./d
1.72723e-77 0
$./d -2.68156e+154 0  ## initializer_list I remember really wanting a feature like this eons ago when I first wrote a matrix template class in 1st year. Here’s a sample of how it could be used #include <iostream> #include <vector> #include <string> template <unsigned r, unsigned c> class m { std::vector<double> mat ; public: class bad_init {} ; m() : mat(r*c) {} m( std::initializer_list<double> i ) : mat( r * c ) { if ( i.size() > ( r * c ) ) { throw bad_init() ; } int p{} ; for ( auto v : i ) { mat[ p++ ] = v ; } } void dump( const std::string & n ) const { const char * sep = ": " ; std::cout << n ; for ( auto v : mat ) { std::cout << sep << v ; sep = ", " ; } std::cout << '\n' ; } } ; int main() { m< 3, 2 > v1 ; m< 3, 2 > v2{ 0., 1., 2., 3., 4. } ; v1.dump( "v1" ) ; v2.dump( "v2" ) ; m< 3, 2 > v3{ 0., 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7. } ; return 0 ; }  This produces the two dumps and the expected std::terminate call for the wrong (too many) parameters on the third construction attempt $ ./i
v1: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
v2: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 0
libc++abi.dylib: terminating with uncaught exception of type m<3u, 2u>::bad_init
Abort trap: 6


## intel memory model talk

I just watched an intel-at-google talk on memory model from right around the days that they were putting in the much clarified memory ordering text into the ISA document.

These slides and the talk do a nice job of explaining the significance of a somewhat obscure point in the ISA document:

• Locked instructions have a total order.

(See ISA Vol 3a-part1, chapter 8.2 Multiple-Processor Management)

The subtlety of this point previously escaped me, and the implication of this is the effect of lock instructions to different memory addresses will always be observed in a specific order.  I’ve always thought of intel LOCKed instructions as a way of implementing something like an powerpc LWARX/STWCX. pair, but this powerpc instruction pair has no implied ordering with respect to any other addresses other than the one that it is operating on.  On powerpc such ordering is really only possible in a pairwise fashion by inserting fencing instructions (LWFENCE and ISYNC typically).  I’m not sure of a way, on powerpc, of obtaining such a total ordering as the intel LOCKed instructions provide.

## stack corruption detection with clang: safe-stack notes

At LZ our development and nightly builds are done with clang, so it is of interest to check out what stack protection checking compiler options are available.  DB2 LUW used the intel compiler, which had very nice stack clobbering code.  How does clang’s fair against the intel compiler in this respect?

Clang does support a safe-stack option.  Here’s an example of some stack corrupting code:

#include <string.h>

void corrupt( char * b ) ;

int main()
{
char b[12] ;

corrupt( b ) ;

return 0 ;
}

void corrupt( char * b )
{
memset( b - 4, 'a', 20 ) ;
}


Running this without safe stack results in a SEGV on return from from corrupt():

with safe-stack we have a “nicer” trap:

(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/pjoot/lznotes/proto/stackcorrupt2

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
__memset_sse2 () at ../sysdeps/x86_64/memset.S:415
415     L(P4Q0): mov    %edx,-0x4(%rdi)
Missing separate debuginfos, use: debuginfo-install libgcc-4.8.3-9.el7.x86_64 libstdc++-4.8.3-9.el7.x86_64
(gdb) where
#0  __memset_sse2 () at ../sysdeps/x86_64/memset.S:415
#1  0x0000000000411835 in corrupt (
b=0x7ffff6bd2ff4 'a' <repeats 12 times>, "\177ELF\002\001\001\003")
at stackcorrupt2.cc:16
#2  0x00000000004117f1 in main () at stackcorrupt2.cc:9


The compiler is able to catch the corruption in the act, right in the offending memset.

## Limitations

What I do notice with this compiler option, is that the implementation has opted not to catch corruptions within the valid stack frame, nor is there any attempt to catch a corruption that does not walk over the return pointer. Here’s an example:

#include <string.h>

void corrupt( char * b ) ;

#define SZ 12
#if 0
// safe-stack catches this:
#define PRESZ 0
#define POSTSZ 4
#else
// safe-stack catches this buffer overwrite
#define PRESZ 4
#define POSTSZ 0
#endif
int main()
{
char b[SZ] ;

corrupt( b ) ;

return 0 ;
}

void corrupt( char * b )
{
memset( b - PRESZ, 'a', SZ + PRESZ + POSTSZ ) ;
}


and another non-trapping stack corruption:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

void corrupt2( int & a, char * b, int & c ) ;

int main()
{
int a = 0 ;
char b[12] ;
int c = 0 ;

corrupt2( a, b, c ) ;

printf( "0x%08X 0x%08X\n", a, c ) ;

return 0 ;
}

void corrupt2( int & a, char * b, int & c )
{
memset( b - 4, 'a', 20 ) ;
}


The intel compiler appeared to use guard bytes between stack variables, and was able to tell you exactly which stack variable was overwritten. Clang appears to be opting for a write-forbidden guard region on the stack frame, so it able to catch the corruption in the act, but only if the corruption is “big enough”. There are benefits of both approaches. Unfortunately, there are a number of restrictions in the safe-stack documentation. I’m not sure that I’ll be able to use this at all in LZ code.

## gdb TUI mode debugging

I recently watched Greg Law’s “I’ll change your opinion on GDB” talk from CPPCON 2015, where he gave a nice example of how to use the gdb TUI (text user interface) mode. I’d recently encountered the gdb –tui option, but thought that you had to have the foresight to remember to invoke gdb with –tui (which I usually didn’t, but also didn’t always want to since it’s redraw was flaky in a putty terminal session).

It turns out that there are command line keystrokes to enable TUI dynamically when you want it (or turn it off when you don’t). That makes this TUI a much nicer feature!

The main key commands of interest are:

– C-x a, turn on (or off) TUI mode.
– C-x 2. Use two windows, or cycle to the next layout.
– C-x o. Change active window.
– C-L.  Redraw screen.

Here’s an example how things look after turning on TUI (C-x a):

After turning on two window mode (C-X 2):

This has a source view, an assembly view, and the output of ‘info registers’.  You can actually get a register window by cycling through the window layouts once (C-x 2 again) :

Some of the previous times that I’d tried ‘gdb –tui’ explicitly, I’d found it hit redraw issues, but didn’t really want to detach and reattach the debugger just to change the TUI mode.  It sounds like such issues can be dealt with either by turning off TUI mode (C-x a), or using redraw (C-L).

## Notes for Stroustrup’s “The C++ Programming Language, 4th Ed.”: nothrow new, noexcept, noreturn, static cons, initializer_list

I recently purchased Stroustrup’s C++11 book [1], after borrowing it a number of times from the Markham public library (it’s very popular, and only offered for short term loan) . Here are some notes of some bits and pieces that were new to me for this round of reading.

## nothrow new

In DB2 we used to have to compile with -fcheck-new or similar, because we had lots of code that predated new throwing on error (c++98). There is a form of new that explicitly doesn’t throw:

void * operator new( size_t sz, const nothrow_t &) noexcept ;


I don’t know if this was introduced in c++11. If this was a c++98 addition, then it should be used in almost all the codebases new calls. When I left DB2 there were still some platform compilers (i.e. AIX xlC which doesn’t use the clang front end like linuxppcle64 xlC) that were not c++11 capable, so if this explicit nothrow isn’t c++98, it probably can’t be used.

## Unnamed function parameters

It is common to see function prototypes without named parameters, such as

void foo( int, int ) ;


I did not realize that is also possible in the function definition, as in code like the following where a parameter has been dropped or left as a placeholder for future use

void foo( int x, int )
{
printf( "%d\n", x ) ;
}


Not naming the parameter is probably a good way to get rid of unused parameter warnings.

This is very likely not a c++11 addition. I just didn’t realize the language allowed for it, and had never seen it done.

## No return attribute

Looks like __attribute__ extensions are being baked right into the language, as in

[[noreturn]] void exit( int ) ;


I wonder if this is also in the plan for C?

C++11 explicitly requires static variable constructors are initialized using a “call-once” mechanism

class x
{
public:
x() ;
} ;

void foo( void )
{
static x v() ;
}


Here there is no data race if foo() is executed concurrently in a number of threads. I remember seeing DB2 code that did this (and opening a defect to have it “fixed”), since I had no idea if it would work. We didn’t (and couldn’t yet) use -std=c++11, so it’s anybody’s guess what that does without that option and on older pre c++11 compilers.

## Implied type initializer lists.

In a previous post I mentioned the c++11 uniform initialization syntax, but the basic idea is that is instead of

int x(1) ;
int y(0) ;


or

int x = 1 ;
int y = 0 ;


c++11 now allows

int x{1} ;
int y{} ;


Here the variables are initialized with values 1, and 0 (the default). The motivation for this was to provide an initializer syntax that could be used with container classes. Here’s another variation on the initializer list initialization

int x = int{} ;
int y = int{3} ;


which can be reduced to

int x = {} ;
int y = {3} ;


where the types of the lists are implied. I don’t see much value add to use this equals-list syntax in the examples above. Where this might be useful is in templated code to provide defaults

template <typename T>
void foo( T x, T v = {} ) ;


## Runtime values for default arguments.

I don’t know if this is new to C++11, but the book points out that default arguments can be runtime determined values. Initially, my thought on this was that it is good that is not well known, since it would be confusing. I did however, come up with a scenerio where this could be useful. I wrote some code like the following the other day

extern bool g ;

inline int foo( )
{
int res = 0 ;

if ( g )
{
// first option
}
else
{
// second option
}

return res ;
}


The global g was precomputed at the shared library startup point (effectively const without being marked so). My unit test of this code modified the value of g, which was a hack and I admit ugly. It looked like

BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( basicTest )
{
for ( auto b : {false, true} )
{
g = b ;

int res = foo() ;

BOOST_REQUIRE( res >= 0 ) ;
}
}


This has a side effect of potentially changing the global. A different way to do this would have been

extern bool g ;

inline int foo( bool internalOverrideOfGlobalForTesting = g )
{
int res = 0 ;

if ( internalOverrideOfGlobalForTesting )
{
// first option
}
else
{
// second option
}

return res ;
}


The test code could then be rewritten as

BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( basicTest )
{
for ( auto b : {false, true} )
{
int res = foo( b ) ;

BOOST_REQUIRE( res >= 0 ) ;
}
}


This doesn’t touch the global (an internal value), but still would have allowed for testing both codepaths. The fact that this “feature” exists may not actually be in this case, since my interface was a C interface. Does a

## noexcept

Functions that intend to provide a C interface can use the noexcept keyword. That allows the compiler to enforce the fact that such functions should provide a firewall that doesn’t let any exceptions through. Example:

// foo.h
#if defined __cplusplus
#define EXTERNC extern "C"
#define NOEXCEPT noexcept
#else
#define EXTERNC
#define NOEXCEPT
#endif

EXTERNC void foo(void) NOEXCEPT ;

// foo.cc
#include "foo.h"
int foo( void ) NOEXCEPT
{
int rc = 0 ;
try {
//
}
catch ( ... )
{
// handle error
rc = 1 ;
}

return rc ;
}


If foo does not catch all exceptions, then the use of noexcept will drive std::terminate(), like a throw from a destructor does on some platforms.

# References

[1] Bjarne Stroustrup. The C++ Programming Language, 4th Edition. Addison-Wesley, 2014.

## Integer square root

In [1] is a rather mysterious looking constant expression formula for an integer square root. This is a function that returns the smallest integer for which the square is less than the value to take the root of. Check out the black magic he used

// Stroustrup 10.4:  constexpr capable integer square root function
constexpr int isqrt_helper( int sq, int d, int n )
{
return sq <= n ? isqrt_helper( sq + d, d + 2, n ) : d ;
}

constexpr int isqrt( int n )
{
return isqrt_helper( 1, 3, n )/2 - 1 ;
}


The point of this construction was really to illustrate that it allows complex expressions to be used as compile time constants. I wonder at what point various compilers will give up trying to evaluate such expressions?

## Let’s take this apart a bit.

Consider the first few values of $$n > 0$$.

• $$n = 0$$. Here we have a call to $$\textrm{isqrt_helper}( 1, 3, 0 )$$ so the $$1 \le 0$$ predicate is false, and the return value is just $$3$$.

For that value we have (using integer arithmetic):

\label{eqn:isqrt:20}
\frac{3}{2} – 1 = 0,

as desired.

• $$n = 1$$. Here we have a call to $$\textrm{isqrt_helper}( 1, 3, 1 )$$ so the $$1 \le 1$$ predicate is true, resulting in a second call $$\textrm{isqrt_helper}( 4, 5, 1 )$$. For that call the $$4 \le 1$$ predicate is false, resulting in a return value of $$5$$.

This time we have a final result of

\label{eqn:isqrt:40}
\frac{5}{2} – 1 = 1,

as desired again. The result will be the same for any value $$n \in [1,3]$$.

• $$n = 4$$. We will end up with a call to $$\textrm{isqrt_helper}( 4, 5, 4 )$$ for which the $$4 \le 4$$ predicate is true, resulting in a followup call of $$\textrm{isqrt_helper}( 9, 7, 4 )$$. For that call the $$9 \le 4$$ predicate is false, resulting in a return value of $$7$$.

This time we have a final result of

\label{eqn:isqrt:45}
\frac{7}{2} – 1 = 2,

as expected. We get the same result for any value $$n \in [4,8]$$.

## Recurrence relations

The rough pattern of the magic involved can be seen. We have a sequence of calls

• $$\textrm{isqrt_helper}( 1, 3, n )$$,
• $$\textrm{isqrt_helper}( 4, 5, n )$$,
• $$\textrm{isqrt_helper}( 9, 7, n )$$,
• $$\textrm{isqrt_helper}( 16, 9, n )$$,

which terminates at the point where the first (square) parameter exceeds that value that we are taking the root of. Let the parameters of the sequence of calls be $$s_k$$, and $$d_k$$, so that with $$s_0 = 1, d_0 = 3$$ the $$k \in [0,…]$$ call to the helper function is $$q_k = \textrm{isqrt_helper}( s_k, d_k, n )$$.

The sequence for the second parameter, the eventual return value, can be summarized compactly as $$d_k = 3 + 2 k$$. It is not entirely obvious how we end up with a square for the values $$s_k = s_{k-1} + d_{k-1}$$, but this follows by summation. For $$k > 1$$ that is

\label{eqn:isqrt:60}
\begin{aligned}
s_k
&= s_{k-1} + d_{k-1} \\
&= s_0 + d_0 + d_1 + d_{k-1} \\
&= s_0 + \sum_{m=0}^{k-1} d_m \\
&= s_0 + \sum_{m=0}^{k-1} (3 + 2 m ) \\
&= s_0 + \sum_{m=1}^{k} (3 + 2 (m-1) ) \\
&= s_0 + \sum_{m=1}^{k} (1 + 2 m ) \\
&= 1 + k + 2 \sum_{m=1}^{k} m \\
&= 1 + k + 2 \frac{k(k+1)}{2} \\
&= k^2 + 2 k + 1 \\
&= (k+1)^2.
\end{aligned}

This clearly holds for the boundary cases $$k = 0,1$$ as well. This allows the helper function action to be summarized more compactly

\label{eqn:isqrt:80}
\textrm{isqrt_helper}(1, 3, n) = 3 + 2 k,

where $$k$$ is the smallest integer such that $$(k+1)^2 > n$$. After integer scaling the final result is

\label{eqn:isqrt:100}
(3 + 2 k)/2 -1 = k.

This little beastie makes sense after deconstruction, but it was very Jackson like to toss this into the book without comment or explanation.

As pointed out by Pramod Gupta, there’s a spooky appearance of collaboration between Stroustrup and Jackson’s publishers, not entirely limited to the book covers.

# References

[1] Bjarne Stroustrup. The C++ Programming Language, 4th Edition. Addison-Wesley, 2014.