...one of the most highly
regarded and expertly designed C++ library projects in the
world.
— Herb Sutter and Andrei
Alexandrescu, C++
Coding Standards
All of the contents of <boost/call_traits.hpp>
are defined inside namespace boost
.
The template class call_traits<T>
encapsulates the "best"
method to pass a parameter of some type T
to or from a function, and consists of a collection of typedef
s
defined as in the table below. The purpose of call_traits
is to ensure that
problems like "references to references"
never occur, and that parameters are passed in the most efficient manner
possible, as in the examples. In each
case, if your existing practice is to use the type defined on the left,
then replace it with the call_traits
defined type on the
right.
Note that for compilers that do not support either partial specialization
or member templates, no benefit will occur from using call_traits
: the call_traits
defined types will
always be the same as the existing practice in this case. In addition if
only member templates and not partial template specialisation is support
by the compiler (for example Visual C++ 6) then call_traits
cannot be used with
array types, although it can still be used to solve the reference to reference
problem.
Table 1.2. call_traits
types
Existing practice |
|
Description |
Notes |
---|---|---|---|
(return by value) |
|
Defines a type that represents the "value" of type
Use this for functions that return by value, or possibly for
stored values of type |
2 |
(return value) |
|
Defines a type that represents a reference to type
Use for functions that would normally return a |
1 |
(return value) |
|
Defines a type that represents a constant reference to type
Use for functions that would normally return a |
1 |
(function parameter) |
|
Defines a type that represents the "best" way to pass
a parameter of type |
1,3 |
Notes:
T
is already reference
type, then call_traits
is defined such that "references to references"
do not occur (requires partial specialization).
T
is an array type,
then call_traits
defines value_type
as a "constant pointer to type" rather than an "array
of type" (requires partial specialization). Note that if you are
using value_type
as
a stored value then this will result in storing a "constant pointer
to an array" rather than the array itself. This may or may not
be a good thing depending upon what you actually need (in other words
take care!).
T
is a small built
in type or a pointer, then param_type
is defined as T const
,
instead of T const&
. This can improve the ability
of the compiler to optimize loops in the body of the function if they
depend upon the passed parameter, the semantics of the passed parameter
is otherwise unchanged (requires partial specialization).
The following table defines which call_traits
types can always be
copy-constructed from which other types:
Table 1.3. Which call_traits
types can always be copy-constructed from which other types
To |
To |
To |
To |
To |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
From |
iff |
iff |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
From |
iff |
iff |
No |
No |
Yes |
From |
iff |
iff |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
From |
iff |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
From |
iff |
iff |
No |
No |
Yes |
If T
is an assignable type
the following assignments are possible:
Table 1.4. Which call_traits
types are assignable from which other types
To |
To |
To |
To |
To |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
From |
Yes |
Yes |
- |
- |
- |
From |
Yes |
Yes |
- |
- |
- |
From |
Yes |
Yes |
- |
- |
- |
From |
Yes |
Yes |
- |
- |
- |
From |
Yes |
Yes |
- |
- |
- |
The following table shows the effect that call_traits
has on various types.
Table 1.5. Examples of call_traits
types
|
|
|
|
Applies to: |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
From |
|
|
|
|
All user-defined types |
From |
|
|
|
|
All small built-in types |
From |
|
|
|
|
All pointer types |
From |
|
|
|
|
All reference types |
From |
|
|
|
|
All constant reference types |
From |
|
|
|
|
All array types |
From |
|
|
|
|
All constant array types |
The table assumes the compiler supports partial specialization: if it does
not then all types behave in the same way as the entry for "my_class
", and call_traits
can not be used with
reference or array types.
The following class is a trivial class that stores some type T
by value (see the call_traits_test.cpp
file). The aim is to illustrate
how each of the available call_traits
typedef
s
may be used:
template <class T> struct contained { // define our typedefs first, arrays are stored by value // so value_type is not the same as result_type: typedef typenameboost::call_traits
<T>::param_type param_type; typedef typenameboost::call_traits
<T>::reference reference; typedef typenameboost::call_traits
<T>::const_reference const_reference; typedef T value_type; typedef typenameboost::call_traits
<T>::value_type result_type; // stored value: value_type v_; // constructors: contained() {} contained(param_type p) : v_(p){} // return byval: result_type value() { return v_; } // return by_ref: reference get() { return v_; } const_reference const_get()const { return v_; } // pass value: void call(param_type p){} };
Consider the definition of std::binder1st
:
template <class Operation>
class binder1st :
public std::unary_function
<typename Operation::second_argument_type, typename Operation::result_type>
{
protected:
Operation op;
typename Operation::first_argument_type value;
public:
binder1st(const Operation& x, const typename Operation::first_argument_type& y);
typename Operation::result_type operator()(const typename Operation::second_argument_type& x) const;
};
Now consider what happens in the relatively common case that the functor
takes its second argument as a reference, that implies that Operation::second_argument_type
is a reference
type, operator()
will now end up taking a reference to a reference as an argument, and
that is not currently legal. The solution here is to modify operator()
to use call_traits
:
typename Operation::result_type operator()(typename call_traits
<typename Operation::second_argument_type>::param_type x) const;
Now in the case that Operation::second_argument_type
is a reference type, the argument is passed as a reference, and the no
"reference to reference" occurs.
If we pass the name of an array as one (or both) arguments to
, then template
argument deduction deduces the passed parameter as "const reference
to array of std::make_pair
T
",
this also applies to string literals (which are really array literals).
Consequently instead of returning a pair of pointers, it tries to return
a pair of arrays, and since an array type is not copy-constructible the
code fails to compile. One solution is to explicitly cast the arguments
to std::make_pair
to pointers, but
call_traits
provides a better automatic solution that works safely even in generic
code where the cast might do the wrong thing:
template <class T1, class T2>std::pair
< typenameboost::call_traits
<T1>::value_type, typenameboost::call_traits
<T2>::value_type> make_pair(const T1& t1, const T2& t2) { returnstd::pair
< typenameboost::call_traits
<T1>::value_type, typenameboost::call_traits
<T2>::value_type>(t1, t2); }
Here, the deduced argument types will be automatically degraded to pointers
if the deduced types are arrays, similar situations occur in the standard
binders and adapters: in principle in any function that "wraps"
a temporary whose type is deduced. Note that the function arguments to
std::make_pair
are not expressed
in terms of call_traits
:
doing so would prevent template argument deduction from functioning.
The call_traits
template will "optimize" the passing of a small built-in type
as a function parameter. This mainly has an effect when the parameter
is used within a loop body.
In the following example (see fill_example.cpp
), a version of std::fill
is optimized in two ways:
if the type passed is a single byte built-in type then std::memset
is used to effect the
fill, otherwise a conventional C++ implementation is used, but with the
passed parameter "optimized" using call_traits
:
template <bool opt> struct filler { template <typename I, typename T> static void do_fill(I first, I last, typenameboost::call_traits
<T>::param_type val) { while(first != last) { *first = val; ++first; } } }; template <> struct filler<true> { template <typename I, typename T> static void do_fill(I first, I last, T val) {std::memset
(first, val, last-first); } }; template <class I, class T> inline void fill(I first, I last, const T& val) { enum { can_opt = boost::is_pointer<I>::value && boost::is_arithmetic<T>::value && (sizeof(T) == 1) }; typedef filler<can_opt> filler_t; filler_t::template do_fill<I,T>(first, last, val); }
The reason that this is "optimal" for small built-in types
is that with the value passed as T
const
instead of const T&
the compiler is able to tell both
that the value is constant and that it is free of aliases. With this
information the compiler is able to cache the passed value in a register,
unroll the loop, or use explicitly parallel instructions: if any of these
are supported. Exactly how much mileage you will get from this depends
upon your compiler - we could really use some accurate benchmarking software
as part of boost for cases like this.
Note that the function arguments to fill are not expressed in terms of
call_traits
:
doing so would prevent template argument deduction from functioning.
Instead fill acts as a "thin wrapper" that is there to perform
template argument deduction, the compiler will optimise away the call
to fill all together, replacing it with the call to filler<>::do_fill
,
which does use call_traits
.
The following notes are intended to briefly describe the rationale behind
choices made in call_traits
.
All user-defined types follow "existing practice" and need no comment.
Small built-in types, what the standard calls fundamental
types, differ from existing practice only in the param_type
typedef
.
In this case passing T const
is compatible with existing practice,
but may improve performance in some cases (see Example
4). In any case this should never be any worse than existing practice.
Pointers follow the same rationale as small built-in types.
For reference types the rationale follows Example
2 - references to references are not allowed, so the call_traits
members must be defined
such that these problems do not occur. There is a proposal to modify the
language such that "a reference to a reference is a reference"
(issue #106, submitted by Bjarne Stroustrup). call_traits<T>
::value_type
and call_traits<T>
::param_type
both provide the same effect
as that proposal, without the need for a language change. In other words,
it's a workaround.
For array types, a function that takes an array as an argument will degrade the array type to a pointer type: this means that the type of the actual parameter is different from its declared type, something that can cause endless problems in template code that relies on the declared type of a parameter.
For example:
template <class T> struct A { void foo(T t); };
In this case if we instantiate A<int[2]>
then the declared type of the parameter passed to member function foo
is int[2]
,
but its actual type is const int*
. If
we try to use the type T
within the function body, then there is a strong likelihood that our code
will not compile:
template <class T> void A<T>::foo(T t) { T dup(t); // doesn't compile for case that T is an array. }
By using call_traits
the degradation from array to pointer is explicit, and the type of the
parameter is the same as it's declared type:
template <class T> struct A { void foo(typenamecall_traits
<T>::value_type t); }; template <class T> void A<T>::foo(typenamecall_traits
<T>::value_type t) { typenamecall_traits
<T>::value_type dup(t); // OK even if T is an array type. }
For value_type
(return
by value), again only a pointer may be returned, not a copy of the whole
array, and again call_traits
makes the degradation explicit. The value_type
member is useful whenever an array must be explicitly degraded to a pointer
- Example 3 provides the test case.
Footnote: the array specialisation for call_traits
is the least well
understood of all the call_traits
specialisations. If the given semantics cause specific problems for you,
or does not solve a particular array-related problem, then I would be interested
to hear about it. Most people though will probably never need to use this
specialisation.
namespace boost { template<typename T> struct call_traits; template<typename T> struct call_traits<T &>; }