lambda - Retaining a pointer by extending the life of capture -


this question has answer here:

is possible extend life of unique_ptr capturing in lambda , extending life of lambda?

i tried out getting syntax errors a=move(a) expression.

#include <cstdio> #include <functional> #include <memory> #include <iostream>  using namespace std;  struct {   a() { cout << "a()" << endl; }  ~a() { cout << "~a()" << endl; } };  int main() {   std::function<void ()> f;   {     std::unique_ptr<a> a(new a());     f = [a=move(a)] () mutable { return; };   }   return 0; }

well problem code std::function. not move friendly needs callable copy constructible/assignable lambda not because of use of move type, unique_ptr in example.

there many examples out there can provide move friendly version of std::function.

i have come here quick, hacky, , error prone "working on machine" version of same:

#include <memory> #include <iostream> #include <type_traits>   struct {   a() { std::cout << "a()" << std::endl; }  ~a() { std::cout << "~a()" << std::endl; } };  template <typename functor> struct holder {     static void call(char* sbo) {         functor* cb = reinterpret_cast<functor*>(sbo);         cb->operator()();     }      static void deleter(char* sbo) {         auto impl = reinterpret_cast<functor*>(sbo);         impl->~functor();     }  };  template <typename sign> struct function;  template <> struct function<void()> {     function() = default;     ~function() {         deleter_(sbo_);     }      template <typename f>     void operator=(f&& f)     {         using c = typename std::decay<f>::type;         new (sbo_) c(std::forward<f>(f));         call_fn_ = holder<c>::call;         deleter_ = holder<c>::deleter;     }      void operator()() {         call_fn_(sbo_);     }      typedef void(*call_ptr_fn)(char*);     call_ptr_fn call_fn_;     call_ptr_fn deleter_;     char sbo_[256] = {0,}; };  int main() {   function<void()> f;   {       std::unique_ptr<a> a(new a());       f = [a=move(a)] () mutable { return; };   }   std::cout << "destructor should not called before this" << std::endl;   return 0; }

to try out yourself: http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/60e1be83753c0f3f


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a better way to structure post methods in Class Based Views -

i'm using class based views in django , never specify url in ajax calls , omit action parameter in form because know these requests go through post method of class based view. notice view - profile page make many requests depending on user updating on page - post method become convoluted , if/else mess example: def post(self, request, *args, **kwargs): # handle user changing available date if request.post.get('availabledate') != none: self.updateavailabledate(request) return jsonresponse({'result':'success'}) if request.post.get('newprojectname') != none: creative_user = creativeuserprofile.objects.get(id = request.user.id) project = project.create_project(creative_user, request.post['newprojectname']) project.save() return jsonresponse({'projectid': project.id }) if request.post.get('projectimage') != none , request.files['file']: proj...
Read more

performance - Why is XCHG reg, reg a 3 micro-op instruction on modern Intel architectures? -

i'm doing micro-optimization on performance critical part of code , came across sequence of instructions (in at&t syntax): add %rax, %rbx mov %rdx, %rax mov %rbx, %rdx i thought had use case xchg allow me shave instruction , write: add %rbx, %rax xchg %rax, %rdx however, dimay found agner fog's instruction tables , xchg 3 micro-op instruction 2 cycle latency on sandy bridge, ivy bridge, broadwell, haswell , skylake. 3 whole micro-ops , 2 cycles of latency! 3 micro-ops throws off 4-1-1-1 cadence , 2 cycle latency makes worse original in best case since last 2 instructions in original might execute in parallel. now... cpu might breaking instruction micro-ops equivalent to: mov %rax, %tmp mov %rdx, %rax mov %tmp, %rdx where tmp anonymous internal register , suppose last 2 micro-ops run in parallel latency 2 cycles. given register renaming occurs on these micro-architectures, though, doesn't make sense me done way. why wouldn't register renamer ...
Read more

c# - Asp.net web api : redirect unauthorized requst to forbidden page -

im trying redirect unauthorized request forbidden page instead i'm getting forbidden page in response body , how can fix ? here's startup class : app.createperowincontext(storecontext.create); app.createperowincontext<applicationusermanager>(applicationusermanager.create); app.createperowincontext<applicationsigninmanager>(applicationsigninmanager.create); app.usecookieauthentication(new cookieauthenticationoptions { authenticationtype = defaultauthenticationtypes.applicationcookie, expiretimespan = timespan.fromdays(30), }); app.useexternalsignincookie(defaultauthenticationtypes.externalcookie); app.usetwofactorsignincookie(defaultauthenticationtypes.twofactorcookie, timespan.fromminutes(5)); app.usetwofactorrememberbrowsercookie(defaultauthenticationtypes.twofactorrememberbrowsercookie); the method im trying reach : [httpget] [authorize(roles = "admin")] public string getcurrentusername() { return userman...
Read more