This Message Has Not Been Sent

This message has not been sent. WTF Outlook? I know that the message has not been sent -- I'm still writing it! Your endless little interruptions are growing tiresome. Like a four-year-old who's not getting enough attention you used to bug me about every little message that you got for me. Look at me, I've got a message that, no matter what, must be more important than whatever it is that you're working on. I finally broke you of that habit but now you have to bug me with your little comments about the obvious at the top of the window so that the rest of the window shifts and distracts me from the whole reason that I have your window open in the first place. Really, it just needs to stop. Plus, half the time your messages are premature; you declare messages as being replied to before I even finish writing the reply. And while we're talking, what have you done to piss off Windows? You seem to be the only program that Windows decides to aggressively swap, to the point that every time I try to raise your window I'm greeted with ten seconds of hard-drive grinding before I can use you. What are you doing to antagonize Windows so? Thunderbird doesn't have this problem. Maybe the sysadmin would be willing to turn on the IMAP support in the exchange server...

Hoops to Jump Through

Whose idea was it for C++ classes that have virtual functions to not automatically have a virtual destructor? There is just no reason for this not to be the case. Not having a virtual destructor is just not going to ever do that right thing when you're dealing with a polymorphic class. Most of the time it's probably going to be a silent problem that you're dealing with. My last encounter with this wonderful bit of the C++ obstacle course resulted in a not insignificant memory leak when I failed to jump through the hoop. I have yet to see a case where it would make sense for a polymorphic class to not a virtual destructor. Sometimes I really do think that C++ is just some colossal joke that Stroustrup is playing on us.

disable_shared_from_this

About once a year I end up thinking that using boost::enable_shared_from_this is a good idea. And every time it ends up wasting almost an hour of my time. You see there's a restriction on shared_from_this that disallows its use in the constructor of the object that is being shared from this. Unfortunately this restriction is not mentioned in the documentation. I always try to use shared_from_this from the constructor and get bad weak pointer errors at run time. I then spend twenty minutes flailing around in the source code trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong until finally a bit of googling brings the not in the constructor restriction out in the open. Once I realize this and start trying to fix things so I don't need to use shared_from_this in the constructor I find that I don't need enable_shared_from_this at all. This happens every time. I'm guessing that most of the boost folks have had the same experience as well since they don't go out of their way to call attention to enable_shared_from_this. Maybe I should stay away from libraries whose documentation can only be reached from a link in an answer to a FAQ about another library. That is just not a good sign.

Update 3-11-09: Of course now that I've posted this I've had two occasions where boost::enable_shared_from_this turned out to be useful.

Why Emacs?

In the process of hacking some C# compatibility into my Emacs config I came across this page. The page itself is moderately interesting and another entry in the guys blog held the solution to a problem I was facing. But the thing that jumped out at me were some of the comments. The most egregious was

You are so lame man... you spent all that time just so you have MOST of the features you get for free on the C# express. lol you FAIL at seeing the big picture

Yes, there are features in Visual Studio that Emacs lacks. I'll give him that. But then Visual Studio lacks the quality that Emacs has. The problem is to get at this quality you can't have this poster's attitude:

The problem is that while emacs and vim will always be flexible, they >require a lot of knowledge, time etc... to gather stuff.

And while you may know and enjoy writing elisp code, I simply refuse >to learn something specifically for one program. I could live with >python or ruby these days, or with a human-readable nice and easy >special language, but learning lisp just so that i maximize using >emacs sounds like sure overkill, especially cuz i would know i >wouldnt really use lisp outside from that (sorry lispers)

The power of Emacs comes from Elisp¹. This is similar to the problem with this comment (and a few others like it)

Hey you do know that their is an Emacs mode inside of VS 2005 and >higher; just go to Tools ->Options-> Enviroment->Keyboard and select >Emacs.

It's not the keyboard shortcuts that make people use Emacs. It's the control that Elisp gives you. And I don't just mean writing huge amounts of code that implement huge features like JDEE². It's little things. Like today I needed to insert a new function into a COM interface and then shift the id numbers of all the following functions up one. I could have just gone through and typed all the numbers but instead I just had to do a regex replace from "id(([0-9]+))" to "id(\,(+ 1 (string-to-number \1)))" and boom it was done in a split second. A lot less time, including that spent writing the regex, and way less brain numbing. And that's a pretty minor example, once you get the hang of it you start automating all sorts of little things that bug you that are too specific to be something the MS, Jetbrains or the Eclipse folks are going to bother dealing with. And, at least in my experience with Visual Studio, adding thee features to the IDE would be more pain then it is worth.

Maybe the best way to put it is: do you control what your tool can do or does your tool control what you can do? ³

---

1. Though it's funny, if the poster actually went out and learned a proper lisp like scheme or CL then the complaint would be coming form the opposite direction given the craptastic dialect that Elisp is. ↩

2. Though I bet it's a lot less code than you'd write in VBScript or whatever it is that Visual Studio is using these days. ↩

3. Insert Beavis and Butthead snickering here if you are so inclined. ↩

Blame the Management

So I've come up with a new reason that C++'s lack of garbage collection is problematic. The strange thing is that the reason is in one of C++'s usual sweet spots: performance.

Really I should qualify the previous statement, I'm talking about performance in multi-threaded programs where you actually want your software to work in some sane fashion as opposed to just flailing around and crashing. In order to accomplish this you need to be making liberal use of boost::shared_ptr or something similar in order to avoid having the rug pulled out from under you on a regular basis¹.

Turns out that the shared_ptr has a dirty little secret: copying one in a multi-threaded program is orders of magnitude slower than copying a bare pointer. The reason for this is that the shared_ptr has a reference count in it. When you copy the shared_ptr that reference count needs to be incremented in a thread-safe manner. On platforms that support it this is done using atomic integer operations, otherwise OS synchronization primitives come into play. Either way you're talking a lot more cycles than just a pointer copy since at minimum you need to wait for the atomic operations to maintain some semblance of processor cache sanity.

So does this mean that we abandon shared_ptr in multi-threaded programs? In C++ the alternative (bare pointers) is much, much worse so I would say no.

Now if we had a modern² garbage collected system we wouldn't need to sacrifice cycles to the cache sanity gods. Instead we could copy pointers to our hearts content. Occasionally we would need to give the garbage man some cycles so in a way the garbage collector is amortizing the cycles we need to spend on memory management. But if well implemented this is a much lower tax to pay. In extreme circumstances you could even take control of the collector and only allow it to run when it's not going to get in the way of more important things.

So how do we mitigate things? One option would be to hook up the Boehm garbage collector to our programs. At some point I'm going to sit down and benchmark the collector versus boost::shared_ptr. But that might not be an option depending on how much legacy code we're talking about.

If you're stuck with no garbage collection then the thing to do is minimize how often a shared_ptr is being copied. In the vast majority of cases you should take a const reference to a shared_ptr as parameters. Unless you're doing something wrong then somewhere either on the stack or shudder in a global variable³ there is an instance of the shared_ptr so you shouldn't have to worry about losing the object pointed at while your function is running. The exception to this is when passing the shared_ptr to another thread. In that case you will need to create a copy of the shared_ptr for the other thread. Note that taking a const reference saves you from a double-whammy. If you take the pointer by value then you pay for the new shared_ptr instance when the function is called and again when the shared_ptr instance is destroyed as the function exits.

You should also prefer plain old dynamic_cast over dynamic_pointer_cast. The latter will increment the reference count on the pointer being casted. If you have the original shared_ptr then you know the object being pointed at isn't going away so just cast the underlying pointer. Obviously if you are going to store the pointer away some where you'll have to pay for the copy.

Another thing to watch out for is locking boost::weak_ptr. You pay every time since the reference count will be locked. If you are by chance using the pointer value without using the pointed to object all the time then consider storing the bare pointer along with the weak_pointer. Then you can use the pointer value whenever without paying to lock but still have the object lifetime monitoring of weak_ptr when you need it.

boost::shared_ptr is great but be aware that it's use isn't free. And while it isn't free the alternative is worse, as long as we're not referring to real garbage collection, which is better.

---

1. I suppose one could argue that by using a reference counted smart pointer one is using garbage collection. Of course if you're driving a Model T you're driving car also.↩
2. read non-reference counted.↩
3. I'm looking at you singleton.↩

It's not rocket science

So i was listening to the stack overflow podcast and Jeff Atwood declared that he thought it was ridiculous that kids are graduating with a CS degree without being taught about source code control. Now I agree that source code control is an important part of software engineering but it doesn't seem like a good subject for a college class. Implementing a source code control system sounds like a good subject for a class but using one? It's not like using a SCCS is all that hard. Where I work we use Seapine Surround which is far from being well known but we usually have new people up to speed with it's basic use in a couple of minutes. It's just not that hard. Now I would look askance at someone who was supposedly experienced yet had never used a source code control system, but a new grad I wouldn't really mind.

Getting the rug pulled out from under you

At some point when you start writing multi-threaded programs in C++ you come to the realization that the this pointer is no longer the trustworthy soul that it once was. Instead it has become a fair-weather friend that is just waiting for you to make that one little mistake and then it completely pulls the rug out from under you. Consider this innocuous looking code:

void Foo::function()
{
    sleep(1000);
    ++m_variable;
}

where m_variable is a member variable of class Foo. Looks totally OK right? Now consider calling Foo::function in the following way:

void other_function()
{
    Foo f;
    run_in_other_thread(boost::bind(&Foo::function, ref(f)));
}

If you were to trace through the call to Foo::function that run_in_other_thread runs in another thread you would see that it seg faults on ++m_variable. How can this be? We're in a member function of a Foo object, how can m_variable not be valid? The problem is that this is no longer a valid pointer. The object that this points at in the call to Foo::function goes out scope in the original thread invalidating this as used in Foo::function.

In single-threaded code there is no danger in Foo::function. In order to call Foo::function you need to have a valid reference to the object that you are calling the method on. In the multi-threaded world all bets are off. You no longer have any guarantee that the object that you called Foo::function on still exists or if it does still exist that it will continue to exist all the way through the call to Foo::function. The object could exist on another thread's stack and when that stack frame goes away, BOOM, out go the lights in the call to Foo::function.

About now you're probably cursing C++'s lack of garbage collection¹. In languages like Java or C# the garbage collector saves us. In order to call Foo::function you have to have a live reference to the Foo object in the current thread thus the garbage collector can't get rid of it half way through the call to Foo::function. There still could be other resource allocation issues but as with most things the garbage collector takes care of about 90% of your problems.

But if we're stuck with C++ due to legacy code and adding garbage collection isn't an option we need to deal with this issue in some way. The first thing that comes to mind is to only use methods in contexts where you can be sure that the object whose method is being called will outlast the method call. When the object is on the stack and you're only using in the thread that owns that stack then you're fine. That's a good argument for keeping as much of your state local to each thread as possible.

There are probably a few other cases where you can reason about object lifetimes well enough to be able to say definitively that an object will outlive all of it's method calls. But these cases are going to be rare and as with lock-based programming you are taking your life in your hands and really it would be nice to have other options as we do for data sychronization.

When you need to start sharing state across threads you boost::shared_ptr becomes a very good friend². At the very least this means that any object that is going to be shared across threads needs to be allocated on the heap and stored in a shared_ptr. Each thread should have its own shared_ptr pointing at the object so you can be sure that the object will stick around as long as there are threads referencing it. Just be sure that you create the new pointers in threads that already have a shared_ptr instance of their own³.

So you need to be careful about separating object ownership and object access. Being a method in a class gives a function the latter. Object ownership is a thread-level concept, not an object or function level concept. So you need to consider whether the thread that a function is executing in has some sort of ownership of the object that you are using. If not then your method call could have the rug yanked out form under at any time⁴.

---

1. If you're not then you really should be.↩
2. Just be sure to respect shared_ptr's boundaries when it comes to threads. Failure to do this will very quickly turn boost::shared_ptr into a mortal enemy.↩
3. Just wanted to really stress that shared_ptr has very specific threading issues and you should really take the time to understand them before using shared_ptr in a multi-threaded program.↩
4. Again, the lack of garbage collection should really concern you.↩