Skip to main content

Ownership idioms, The Move Constructor idiom and auto_ptr

There are properties of objects that are relevant beyond mere identity of the object. One of such properties is Ownership! Who owns the object? Can you transfer the ownership? Questions like these become quite important when you are implementing Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII) idiom. Tom Cargill describes [in PLoPD2] a set of ownership patterns: "Creator as a Sole Owner", "Sequence of Owners", and "Shared Ownership". Lets take a look at the idioms for each one of them.

Creator as a sole owner can be simply implemented using const auto_ptr idiom by Hurb Sutter. Sequence of owners come into play when ownerships moves from one guy to the other. (a.k.a. Move Semantics). Standard auto_ptrs use move semantics. Implementation of move semantics appears to be a juicy issue as far as std::auto_ptrs are concerned. See Meyer's errata like notes on his book More Effective C++ and Sutter's GotW #25 articles. M. D. Wilson's article on Move Constructors is a very good start before you jump into Sutter's above mentioned article that has difficulty level 8/10! And Finally, if you are still hungry for some more spicy generic programming stuff, please see Alexandrescu's article on Move Constructor in Dr. Dobb's May 2003 issue.

Cargill's Shared Ownership patterns take us to the world of reference counting and reference linking. Some idioms in this space allow us to avoid making unnecessary deep copies. Copy-on-Write (COW) idiom is an important one. Another idiom to avoid the overhead is called "Temporary Base Class Idiom" given by Bernd Mohr. It somehow reminds me of the move constructor idiom. Finally, Return Value Optimization (RVO) and Named Return Value Optimization (NRVO) are important compiler optimization techniques that avoid unnecessary calls to the copy-constructor and the copy-assignment operator.

Comments

leo said…
Thank you very much, that was exactly what I was looking for.
Anonymous said…
Same here! Thanks for that useful article!

Popular posts from this blog

Multi-dimensional arrays in C++11

What new can be said about multi-dimensional arrays in C++? As it turns out, quite a bit! With the advent of C++11, we get new standard library class std::array. We also get new language features, such as template aliases and variadic templates. So I'll talk about interesting ways in which they come together.

It all started with a simple question of how to define a multi-dimensional std::array. It is a great example of deceptively simple things. Are the following the two arrays identical except that one is native and the other one is std::array?

int native[3][4];
std::array<std::array<int, 3>, 4> arr;

No! They are not. In fact, arr is more like an int[4][3]. Note the difference in the array subscripts. The native array is an array of 3 elements where every element is itself an array of 4 integers. 3 rows and 4 columns. If you want a std::array with the same layout, what you really need is:

std::array<std::array<int, 4>, 3> arr;

That's quite annoying for two r…

Covariance and Contravariance in C++ Standard Library

Covariance and Contravariance are concepts that come up often as you go deeper into generic programming. While designing a language that supports parametric polymorphism (e.g., templates in C++, generics in Java, C#), the language designer has a choice between Invariance, Covariance, and Contravariance when dealing with generic types. C++'s choice is "invariance". Let's look at an example.
struct Vehicle {}; struct Car : Vehicle {}; std::vector<Vehicle *> vehicles; std::vector<Car *> cars; vehicles = cars; // Does not compile The above program does not compile because C++ templates are invariant. Of course, each time a C++ template is instantiated, the compiler creates a brand new type that uniquely represents that instantiation. Any other type to the same template creates another unique type that has nothing to do with the earlier one. Any two unrelated user-defined types in C++ can't be assigned to each-other by default. You have to provide a c…

Inheritance vs std::variant

C++17 added std::variant and std::visit in its repertoire. They are worth a close examination. I've been wondering about whether they are always better than inheritance for modeling sum-types (fancy name for discriminated unions) and if not, under what circumstances they are not. We'll compare the two approaches in this blog post. So here it goes.

Inheritancestd::variantNeed not know all the derived types upfront (open-world assumption)Must know all the cases upfront (closed-world assumption)Dynamic Allocation (usually)No dynamic allocationIntrusive (must inherit from the base class)Non-intrusive (third-party classes can participate)Reference semantics (think how you copy a vector of pointers to base class?)Value semantics (copying is trivial)Algorithm scattered into classesAlgorithm in one placeLanguage supported (Clear errors if pure-virtual is not implemented)Library supported (poor error messages)Creates a first-class abstractionIt’s just a containerKeeps fluent interfaces…