5

Vectors and unique pointers

 2 years ago
source link: https://www.sandordargo.com/blog/2023/04/12/vector-of-unique-pointers
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
neoserver,ios ssh client

Vectors and unique pointers

Sandor Dargo 8 hours ago2023-04-12T00:00:00+02:00

In this post, I want to share some struggles I had twice during the last few months. For one of my examples, I wanted to initialize a std::vector with std::unique_ptr. It didn’t compile and I had little time, I didn’t even think about it. I waved my hand and changed my example.

Then I ran into the same issue at work, while we were pairing over an issue. I couldn’t just wave anymore, and luckily we also had the time to go a bit deeper.

What we wanted was a little bit different and more complex though. We wanted to return a vector of unique pointers to a struct that holds - among others - a unique pointer.

This is a simplified version of what we wanted:

class Resource {
  // unimportant
};

struct Wrapper {
  std::string name;
  std::unique_ptr<Resource> resource;
}

// somewhere in a function
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Wrapper>> v{
  std::make_unique<Wrapper>(std::move(aName), std::make_unique<Resource>()),
  std::make_unique<Wrapper>(std::move(anotherName), std::make_unique<Resource>())
};

That’s a bit too complex to start with, so let’s dissect the issue into two parts.

No compiler-generated copy constructor

Let’s first omit the external unique pointer and try to brace-initialize a vector of Wrapper objects.

#include <memory>
#include <string>
#include <vector>

class Resource {
  // unimportant
};

struct Wrapper {
  std::string m_name;
  std::unique_ptr<Resource> m_resource;
};


int main() {
  std::string aName = "bla";
  std::vector<Wrapper> v{Wrapper{aName, std::make_unique<Resource>()}};
}

The first part of the problem is that we cannot {}-initialize this vector of Wrappers. Even though it seems alright at a first glance. Wrapper is a struct with public members and no explicitly defined special functions. Our {}-initialization follows the right syntax and the parameters are passed in the right order.

Still, the compiler says stop! Here is a part of the error messages. As vector is a template we cannot expect a concise message.

/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-12.2.0/include/c++/12.2.0/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:90:56: error: static assertion failed: result type must be constructible from input type
   90 |       static_assert(is_constructible<_ValueType, _Tp>::value,

If we scroll up in the errors we’ll find a more explanatory line:

In instantiation of 'constexpr bool std::__check_constructible() [with _ValueType = Wrapper; _Tp = const Wrapper&]':

So the problem is Wrapper cannot be constructed from const Wrapper&, in other words, Wrapper cannot be copy constructed. That makes sense! It has a move-only member, std::unique_ptr<Resource> m_resource! Because of this move-only member, the compiler cannot automatically generate a copy constructor.

A std::vector always copies its std::initializer_list

That’s all fine but why do we need a copy constructor? Why cannot we benefit from move semantics?

We can spot the answer on C++ Reference! std::vector has only one constructor involving a std::initializer_list and there the initializer_list is taken by value. In other words, vector copies its initializer_list. Always.

As the passed in initializer_list is going to be copied, the contained type must be copy-constructible. That’s clearly not the case for Wrapper which we can easily assert.

struct Wrapper {
  std::string m_name;
  std::unique_ptr<Resource> m_resource;
};

static_assert(std::is_copy_constructible<Wrapper>());
/*
main.cpp:18:20: error: static assertion failed
   18 | static_assert(std::is_copy_constructible<Wrapper>());
      |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*/

Let’s make contained types copy constructible

That’s quite easy to fix, we need to provide a user-defined copy constructor, such as Wrapper(const Wrapper& other): m_name(other.m_name), m_resource(std::make_unique<Resource>()) {}. At the same time, let’s not forget about the rules of 0/3/5, so we should provide all the special functions.

Now we don’t have the problem anymore, we can easily use the brace initialization.

#include <memory>
#include <string>
#include <vector>

class Resource {
  // unimportant
};

struct Wrapper {
  std::string m_name;
  std::unique_ptr<Resource> m_resource;
  Wrapper() = default;
  ~Wrapper() = default;
  Wrapper(std::string name, std::unique_ptr<Resource> resource) : m_name(std::move(name)), m_resource(std::move(resource)) {}
	
  Wrapper(const Wrapper& other) : m_name(other.m_name), m_resource(std::make_unique<Resource>()) {}
  Wrapper(Wrapper&& other) = default;
	
  Wrapper& operator=(const Wrapper& other) {
    m_name = other.m_name;
    m_resource = std::make_unique<Resource>();
    return *this;
  }
	    
  Wrapper& operator=(Wrapper&& other) = default;
};

int main() {
  std::string aName = "bla";
  std::vector<Wrapper> v{Wrapper{aName, 
  std::make_unique<Resource>()}};
}

But what if we cannot or do not want to modify Wrapper? Do we have any other options?

Of course!

We can also extract vector initialization

If we have to avoid the brace-initialization of the vector, we can simply default initialize it, probably reserving then enough space for the items we want to add, and use either vector’s emplace_back() or push_back() methods.

There is not a big difference in this case between emplace_back() and push_back(). push_back() will call the appropriate constructor first and then the move constructor. emplace_back() will only make one constructor call. At least that’s the theory. Let’s see if we’re right. I amended Wrapper so that each of its special functions prints.

#include <memory>
#include <string>
#include <vector>

#include <iostream>

class Resource {
  // unimportant
};

struct Wrapper {
  std::string m_name;
  std::unique_ptr<Resource> m_resource;

  Wrapper() {
    std::cout << "Wrapper()\n";
  }

  ~Wrapper() {
    std::cout << "~Wrapper()\n";
  }
	
  Wrapper (std::string name, std::unique_ptr<Resource> resource) : m_name(std::move(name)), m_resource(std::move(resource)) {
    std::cout << "Wrapper (std::string name, std::unique_ptr<Resource> resource)\n";
  }

  Wrapper(const Wrapper& other) : m_name(other.m_name), m_resource(std::make_unique<Resource>()) {
    std::cout << "Wrapper (const Wrapper& other)\n";
  }

  Wrapper(Wrapper&& other) {
    std::cout << "Wrapper (Wrapper&& other)\n";
  }

  Wrapper& operator=(const Wrapper& other) {
    std::cout << "Wrapper& operator=(const Wrapper& other)\n";
    return *this;
  }
	
  Wrapper& operator=(Wrapper&& other) {
    std::cout << "Wrapper& operator=(Wrapper&& other)\n";
    return *this;
  }
};


int main() {
  std::string aName = "bla";
  std::vector<Wrapper> v{};
  v.emplace_back(aName, std::make_unique<Resource>());
  // v.push_back(Wrapper(aName, std::make_unique<Resource>()));
}

/*
output with emplace_back:
Wrapper (std::string name, std::unique_ptr<Resource> resource)
~Wrapper()
*/

/*
output with push_back
Wrapper (std::string name, std::unique_ptr<Resource> resource)
Wrapper (Wrapper&& other)
~Wrapper()
~Wrapper()
*/

Our assumption was right, except that I forgot to note the extra destructor call on a moved-from object. While these extra calls would be often negligible, we have no reason not to use emplace_back(). It’s not more difficult to write it and it’s better for the performance.

With that, we’ve seen why we couldn’t {}-initialize a vector of Wrappers following the rule of zero, where Wrapper is a type that allocates on the heap.

Now let’s move over to the other issue.

The same issue with initializer_list once again

Actually, by answering the first question, we also learned why we cannot {}-initialize a vector of unique_ptrs. It’s the problem of an initializer_list taken by value instead of reference and the fact that unique_ptrs cannot be copied.

Can we do anything to improve the situation?

We can extract the creation and population of the vector to a separate method so that we don’t have the visual noise of vector insertions along with the rest of the code.

std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Resource>> createResources() {
  std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Resource>> vec;
  vec.push_back(std::make_unique<Resource>());
  vec.push_back(std::make_unique<Resource>());
  vec.push_back(std::make_unique<Resource>());
  return vec;
}


int main() {
  std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Resource>> resources = createResources();
  // ...
}

But can we do something better?

We can make a better, generalized function that makes us a vector of unique_ptrs, but the idea behind is essentially the same: the pointers are added one by one after the construction of the vector.

Let me borrow an implementation by Bartek. I take this piece of code from C++ Storties and I encourage you to read the whole article on initializer_list:

template<typename T, typename... Args>
auto makeVector(Args&&... args) {
  std::vector<T> vec;
  vec.reserve(sizeof...(Args)); 
  (vec.emplace_back(std::forward<Args>(args)), ...);
  return vec;
}

Now we can update our original example.

#include <memory>
#include <string>
#include <vector>

#include <iostream>

class Resource {
  // unimportant
};

struct Wrapper {
  std::string m_name;
  std::unique_ptr<Resource> m_resource;
  Wrapper() = default;
  ~Wrapper() = default;
  Wrapper(std::string name, std::unique_ptr<Resource> resource) : m_name(std::move(name)), m_resource(std::move(resource)) {}
	
  Wrapper(const Wrapper& other) : m_name(other.m_name), m_resource(std::make_unique<Resource>()) {}
    Wrapper(Wrapper&& other) = default;
	
  Wrapper& operator=(const Wrapper& other) {
    m_name = other.m_name;
    m_resource = std::make_unique<Resource>();
    return *this;
  }
	    
  Wrapper& operator=(Wrapper&& other) = default;
};

// this is from Bartek: https://www.cppstories.com/2023/initializer_list_improvements/
template<typename T, typename... Args>
auto makeVector(Args&&... args) {
  std::vector<T> vec;
  vec.reserve(sizeof...(Args)); 
  (vec.emplace_back(std::forward<Args>(args)), ...);
  return vec;
}

int main() {
  [[maybe_unused]] std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Wrapper>> v = makeVector<std::unique_ptr<Wrapper>>(
  std::make_unique<Wrapper>("keyboard", std::make_unique<Resource>()),
  std::make_unique<Wrapper>("mouse", std::make_unique<Resource>()),
  std::make_unique<Wrapper>("screen", std::make_unique<Resource>())
  );
  return 0;
}

Conclusion

Today, I shared with you a problem I faced lately. I wanted to {}-initialize a vector of unique pointers, but it didn’t work. A std::vector takes an initializer_list by value, so it makes a copy of it. Hence, the compilation will fail if you try to use an initializer_list with move-only types.

If you want to use the {}-initializer for a vector, you need to implement the move constructor. If that’s not an option and you want to separate the creation of the vector, you have no other option than move the related code to a separate function.

Connect deeper

If you liked this article, please


report

Recommend

About Joyk


Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK