How to make a function that can return either a static or automatic storage objects without copy in C++?










11















Suppose I want to write something a function such that:



  • it returns an object

  • under certain circumstances, depending on a parameter of the function, the object has a fixed value that can be calculated only once to save time. So the natural choice is to make that object static.

  • otherwise, the function must generate the object on the fly

What is the best to write this function, with the requirements that:



  • no copy constructors are required upon call, only move, to prevent copying all the data of an expensive object

  • I don't want to use new raw pointers. If pointers are required, they must be smart and auto delete

The use case is the following:



  • certain values are very common, so I want to cache them

  • other values are very rare, so I want them not to be cached

The caller should not know which values are common, the interface should be transparent for both cases.



So far, the only clean implementation that I've managed is to use shared_ptr as shown below, but it feels like overkill. In particular, because it makes a heap allocation, where it feels that one is not really required. Is there a better approach?



#include <cassert>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

struct C
int i;
static int count;
C(int i) : i(i)
std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
count++;

C(const C& c) : C(c.i)
std::cout << "copy" << std::endl;

~C()
std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
count--;

;
int C::count = 0;

std::shared_ptr<C> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)
static auto static_obj = std::make_shared<C>(0);
if (i == 0)
return static_obj;
else
return std::make_shared<C>(i);



int main()
assert(C::count == 0);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(0));
assert(c->i == 0);
assert(C::count == 1);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(0));
assert(c->i == 0);
assert(C::count == 1);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(1));
assert(c->i == 1);
assert(C::count == 2);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(2));
assert(c->i == 2);
assert(C::count == 2);

assert(C::count == 1);



Which I compile with GCC 6.4.0:



g++ -std=c++17 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic-errors -o main.out func_ret_maybe_static.cpp


and it produces the expected output (guaranteed by copy elision I believe):



constr
constr
destr
constr
destr
destr


I've added the static reference counter C::count just to check that objects are actually getting deleted as expected.



If I didn't have the static case, I would just do directly:



C func_reg_maybe_static(int i) 
return C(i);



and copy elision / move semantics would make everything efficient.



However, if I try something analogous as in:



C func_reg_maybe_static(int i) 
static C c(0);
return c;



then C++ smartly stops just moving C, and starts to copy it, to avoid corrupting the static.










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Not quite clear what else you want - if you return object by value you either have to move or copy it. You can move automatic but must copy static object obviously. Or use smart pointer.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:34











  • @Slava any better way than shared_ptr as I've done, or is this a valid use of shared_ptr?

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:36






  • 1





    Any use of std::shared_ptr is valid unless you abuse it. I think in this case it is most straightforward and easy to understand solution.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:42











  • @Slava You can return a reference to a static-local, no need for shared_ptr

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:46






  • 1





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit you can return a reference to a static, but you cannot return a reference to an automatic, and it seems you need both a static and an automatic here.

    – n.m.
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:20















11















Suppose I want to write something a function such that:



  • it returns an object

  • under certain circumstances, depending on a parameter of the function, the object has a fixed value that can be calculated only once to save time. So the natural choice is to make that object static.

  • otherwise, the function must generate the object on the fly

What is the best to write this function, with the requirements that:



  • no copy constructors are required upon call, only move, to prevent copying all the data of an expensive object

  • I don't want to use new raw pointers. If pointers are required, they must be smart and auto delete

The use case is the following:



  • certain values are very common, so I want to cache them

  • other values are very rare, so I want them not to be cached

The caller should not know which values are common, the interface should be transparent for both cases.



So far, the only clean implementation that I've managed is to use shared_ptr as shown below, but it feels like overkill. In particular, because it makes a heap allocation, where it feels that one is not really required. Is there a better approach?



#include <cassert>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

struct C
int i;
static int count;
C(int i) : i(i)
std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
count++;

C(const C& c) : C(c.i)
std::cout << "copy" << std::endl;

~C()
std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
count--;

;
int C::count = 0;

std::shared_ptr<C> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)
static auto static_obj = std::make_shared<C>(0);
if (i == 0)
return static_obj;
else
return std::make_shared<C>(i);



int main()
assert(C::count == 0);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(0));
assert(c->i == 0);
assert(C::count == 1);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(0));
assert(c->i == 0);
assert(C::count == 1);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(1));
assert(c->i == 1);
assert(C::count == 2);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(2));
assert(c->i == 2);
assert(C::count == 2);

assert(C::count == 1);



Which I compile with GCC 6.4.0:



g++ -std=c++17 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic-errors -o main.out func_ret_maybe_static.cpp


and it produces the expected output (guaranteed by copy elision I believe):



constr
constr
destr
constr
destr
destr


I've added the static reference counter C::count just to check that objects are actually getting deleted as expected.



If I didn't have the static case, I would just do directly:



C func_reg_maybe_static(int i) 
return C(i);



and copy elision / move semantics would make everything efficient.



However, if I try something analogous as in:



C func_reg_maybe_static(int i) 
static C c(0);
return c;



then C++ smartly stops just moving C, and starts to copy it, to avoid corrupting the static.










share|improve this question



















  • 1





    Not quite clear what else you want - if you return object by value you either have to move or copy it. You can move automatic but must copy static object obviously. Or use smart pointer.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:34











  • @Slava any better way than shared_ptr as I've done, or is this a valid use of shared_ptr?

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:36






  • 1





    Any use of std::shared_ptr is valid unless you abuse it. I think in this case it is most straightforward and easy to understand solution.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:42











  • @Slava You can return a reference to a static-local, no need for shared_ptr

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:46






  • 1





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit you can return a reference to a static, but you cannot return a reference to an automatic, and it seems you need both a static and an automatic here.

    – n.m.
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:20













11












11








11


2






Suppose I want to write something a function such that:



  • it returns an object

  • under certain circumstances, depending on a parameter of the function, the object has a fixed value that can be calculated only once to save time. So the natural choice is to make that object static.

  • otherwise, the function must generate the object on the fly

What is the best to write this function, with the requirements that:



  • no copy constructors are required upon call, only move, to prevent copying all the data of an expensive object

  • I don't want to use new raw pointers. If pointers are required, they must be smart and auto delete

The use case is the following:



  • certain values are very common, so I want to cache them

  • other values are very rare, so I want them not to be cached

The caller should not know which values are common, the interface should be transparent for both cases.



So far, the only clean implementation that I've managed is to use shared_ptr as shown below, but it feels like overkill. In particular, because it makes a heap allocation, where it feels that one is not really required. Is there a better approach?



#include <cassert>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

struct C
int i;
static int count;
C(int i) : i(i)
std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
count++;

C(const C& c) : C(c.i)
std::cout << "copy" << std::endl;

~C()
std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
count--;

;
int C::count = 0;

std::shared_ptr<C> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)
static auto static_obj = std::make_shared<C>(0);
if (i == 0)
return static_obj;
else
return std::make_shared<C>(i);



int main()
assert(C::count == 0);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(0));
assert(c->i == 0);
assert(C::count == 1);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(0));
assert(c->i == 0);
assert(C::count == 1);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(1));
assert(c->i == 1);
assert(C::count == 2);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(2));
assert(c->i == 2);
assert(C::count == 2);

assert(C::count == 1);



Which I compile with GCC 6.4.0:



g++ -std=c++17 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic-errors -o main.out func_ret_maybe_static.cpp


and it produces the expected output (guaranteed by copy elision I believe):



constr
constr
destr
constr
destr
destr


I've added the static reference counter C::count just to check that objects are actually getting deleted as expected.



If I didn't have the static case, I would just do directly:



C func_reg_maybe_static(int i) 
return C(i);



and copy elision / move semantics would make everything efficient.



However, if I try something analogous as in:



C func_reg_maybe_static(int i) 
static C c(0);
return c;



then C++ smartly stops just moving C, and starts to copy it, to avoid corrupting the static.










share|improve this question
















Suppose I want to write something a function such that:



  • it returns an object

  • under certain circumstances, depending on a parameter of the function, the object has a fixed value that can be calculated only once to save time. So the natural choice is to make that object static.

  • otherwise, the function must generate the object on the fly

What is the best to write this function, with the requirements that:



  • no copy constructors are required upon call, only move, to prevent copying all the data of an expensive object

  • I don't want to use new raw pointers. If pointers are required, they must be smart and auto delete

The use case is the following:



  • certain values are very common, so I want to cache them

  • other values are very rare, so I want them not to be cached

The caller should not know which values are common, the interface should be transparent for both cases.



So far, the only clean implementation that I've managed is to use shared_ptr as shown below, but it feels like overkill. In particular, because it makes a heap allocation, where it feels that one is not really required. Is there a better approach?



#include <cassert>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

struct C
int i;
static int count;
C(int i) : i(i)
std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
count++;

C(const C& c) : C(c.i)
std::cout << "copy" << std::endl;

~C()
std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
count--;

;
int C::count = 0;

std::shared_ptr<C> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)
static auto static_obj = std::make_shared<C>(0);
if (i == 0)
return static_obj;
else
return std::make_shared<C>(i);



int main()
assert(C::count == 0);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(0));
assert(c->i == 0);
assert(C::count == 1);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(0));
assert(c->i == 0);
assert(C::count == 1);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(1));
assert(c->i == 1);
assert(C::count == 2);

assert(C::count == 1);


auto c(func_reg_maybe_static(2));
assert(c->i == 2);
assert(C::count == 2);

assert(C::count == 1);



Which I compile with GCC 6.4.0:



g++ -std=c++17 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic-errors -o main.out func_ret_maybe_static.cpp


and it produces the expected output (guaranteed by copy elision I believe):



constr
constr
destr
constr
destr
destr


I've added the static reference counter C::count just to check that objects are actually getting deleted as expected.



If I didn't have the static case, I would just do directly:



C func_reg_maybe_static(int i) 
return C(i);



and copy elision / move semantics would make everything efficient.



However, if I try something analogous as in:



C func_reg_maybe_static(int i) 
static C c(0);
return c;



then C++ smartly stops just moving C, and starts to copy it, to avoid corrupting the static.







c++






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 14 '18 at 17:08







Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功

















asked Nov 14 '18 at 16:24









Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功

144k33549465




144k33549465







  • 1





    Not quite clear what else you want - if you return object by value you either have to move or copy it. You can move automatic but must copy static object obviously. Or use smart pointer.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:34











  • @Slava any better way than shared_ptr as I've done, or is this a valid use of shared_ptr?

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:36






  • 1





    Any use of std::shared_ptr is valid unless you abuse it. I think in this case it is most straightforward and easy to understand solution.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:42











  • @Slava You can return a reference to a static-local, no need for shared_ptr

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:46






  • 1





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit you can return a reference to a static, but you cannot return a reference to an automatic, and it seems you need both a static and an automatic here.

    – n.m.
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:20












  • 1





    Not quite clear what else you want - if you return object by value you either have to move or copy it. You can move automatic but must copy static object obviously. Or use smart pointer.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:34











  • @Slava any better way than shared_ptr as I've done, or is this a valid use of shared_ptr?

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:36






  • 1





    Any use of std::shared_ptr is valid unless you abuse it. I think in this case it is most straightforward and easy to understand solution.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:42











  • @Slava You can return a reference to a static-local, no need for shared_ptr

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:46






  • 1





    @LightnessRacesinOrbit you can return a reference to a static, but you cannot return a reference to an automatic, and it seems you need both a static and an automatic here.

    – n.m.
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:20







1




1





Not quite clear what else you want - if you return object by value you either have to move or copy it. You can move automatic but must copy static object obviously. Or use smart pointer.

– Slava
Nov 14 '18 at 16:34





Not quite clear what else you want - if you return object by value you either have to move or copy it. You can move automatic but must copy static object obviously. Or use smart pointer.

– Slava
Nov 14 '18 at 16:34













@Slava any better way than shared_ptr as I've done, or is this a valid use of shared_ptr?

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
Nov 14 '18 at 16:36





@Slava any better way than shared_ptr as I've done, or is this a valid use of shared_ptr?

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
Nov 14 '18 at 16:36




1




1





Any use of std::shared_ptr is valid unless you abuse it. I think in this case it is most straightforward and easy to understand solution.

– Slava
Nov 14 '18 at 16:42





Any use of std::shared_ptr is valid unless you abuse it. I think in this case it is most straightforward and easy to understand solution.

– Slava
Nov 14 '18 at 16:42













@Slava You can return a reference to a static-local, no need for shared_ptr

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 14 '18 at 16:46





@Slava You can return a reference to a static-local, no need for shared_ptr

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 14 '18 at 16:46




1




1





@LightnessRacesinOrbit you can return a reference to a static, but you cannot return a reference to an automatic, and it seems you need both a static and an automatic here.

– n.m.
Nov 14 '18 at 17:20





@LightnessRacesinOrbit you can return a reference to a static, but you cannot return a reference to an automatic, and it seems you need both a static and an automatic here.

– n.m.
Nov 14 '18 at 17:20












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6














I don't really understand the purpose of the static/automatic stuff. If all you're trying to do is avoid repeated constructions when the argument has been used before, why not just have a cache instead?



C& func_reg(const int i)

static std::unordered_map<int, C> cache;
auto it = cache.find(i);
if (it == cache.end())
it = cache.emplace(i, C(i));

return it->second;



Don't always want the cache? Fine! Add this:



C func_reg_nocache(const int i)

return C(i);




If I've misunderstood and you really need this thing where passing is_static == true gives you an entirely different object (one constructed with 0 rather than i) then just make a new function for that; it's doing something distinct.



C& func_reg()

static C obj(0);
return obj;


C func_reg(const int i)

return C(i);






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    There's nothing left with automatic storage then, right?

    – YSC
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:35











  • @YSC: Nope but I'm wilfully dropping that requirement because I don't really understand its value. Speaking functionally, that is. OP does allow for dynamic allocation as long as things are cleaned up automatically.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:35












  • From OP's last comment, I fully agree. +1.

    – YSC
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:36






  • 1





    @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Maybe but now we're really in the realm of me not understanding what problem you're trying to solve, sorry.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:39






  • 1





    You made me realize that I had not mapped my problem well to the question. I have edited the question to reflect that, hopefully this is the right approach in this case rather than asking a new one.

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:09


















4














The returned object may refer to a preexisting object depending on an opaque criteria. This implies that the function needs to return by reference. But since the storage for an uncached value must outlive the function and not be on the heap, the caller needs to preemptively provide the storage on the stack for the returned object.



C& func_reg_maybe_static(int i, void* buf)

static C c(0);
if(i == 0)
return c;
else
return *new (buf) C(i);


using uninit_C = std::aligned_storage<sizeof(C), alignof(C)>;
uninit_C buf;
auto& c = func_reg_maybe_static(i, &buf);


This requires a manual destructor call further down the line if and only if the destructor has side effects. Another take would be



C& func_reg_maybe_static(int i, C& buf)

static C c(0);
if(i == 0)
return c;
else

buf.~C();
return *new (&buf) C(i); // note below



C buf;
auto& c = func_reg_maybe_static(i, buf);


This version obviously requires C be default constructible. The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C. The destructor will be called on scope exit.






share|improve this answer

























  • Why do we need return *new (buf) C(i);, and not just return C(i) in the else statement?

    – Sahil Dhoked
    Nov 14 '18 at 18:55











  • @SahilDhoked We return by reference.

    – Passer By
    Nov 14 '18 at 18:56











  • Cool, I didn't know about placement new. Can you clarify "The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C.": when is it now legal?

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 15 '18 at 4:59











  • @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Link added.

    – Passer By
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:12






  • 1





    @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 And I'm sorry about the billion edits, I wasn't all that awake when I wrote this.

    – Passer By
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:21


















3














What you want is essentially a variant:



std::variant<C, C*> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)

static C static_obj 0 ;
if (i == 0)
return &static_obj;
else
return std::variant<C, C*> std::inplace_type_t<C>, i ;




This has the advantage of not requiring any additional memory allocations (compared to the shared_ptr approach). But it is somewhat inconvenient to use on the caller side. We could work around this by writing a wrapper class:



template <class C> class value_or_ptr

std::variant<C, C*> object_;
public:
explicit template <class... Params> value_or_ptr(Params&&... parameters)
: object_(std::inplace_type_t<C>, std::forward<Params>(parameters)...)

explicit value_or_ptr(C* object)
: object_(object)

// other constructors...

C& operator*()

return object_.index() == 0 ? std::get<0>(object_) : *std::get<1>(object_);


// other accessors...



If you don't have a C++17 compiler, the same can be done with unions, but the implementation will of course be more complex. The original function then becomes:



value_or_ptr<C> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)

static C static_obj 0 ;
if (i == 0)
return value_or_ptr &static_obj ;
else
return value_or_ptr i ;




Contrast with Overloads



We could achieve similar results with function overloads:



C& func_reg()

static C obj 0 ;
return obj;


C func_reg(const int i)

return C i ;



This has the advantage of being simpler but might require the caller to make a copy. It also requires the caller to know if a pre-computed object will be returned (which is undesirable). With the variant approach, the caller can treat the results uniformly. The caller always gets back an object with value semantics and does not need to know if he will receive a pre-computed object.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    How this overcomplicated way is better than use std::shared_ptr, which is pretty obvious?

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:41






  • 2





    This avoids unnecessary heap allocations.

    – Peter Ruderman
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:41











  • Or just two separate functions, one returning C& and the other returning C! I don't see the need for shared_ptr at all. I must be missing something.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:43












  • It can be done much simpler way - std::shared_ptr pointing to static object if that is really necessary. I doubt it is.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:43






  • 1





    I have updated the question to prevent cheating with different interfaces :-) Sorry for the mess.

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:11










Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53304666%2fhow-to-make-a-function-that-can-return-either-a-static-or-automatic-storage-obje%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6














I don't really understand the purpose of the static/automatic stuff. If all you're trying to do is avoid repeated constructions when the argument has been used before, why not just have a cache instead?



C& func_reg(const int i)

static std::unordered_map<int, C> cache;
auto it = cache.find(i);
if (it == cache.end())
it = cache.emplace(i, C(i));

return it->second;



Don't always want the cache? Fine! Add this:



C func_reg_nocache(const int i)

return C(i);




If I've misunderstood and you really need this thing where passing is_static == true gives you an entirely different object (one constructed with 0 rather than i) then just make a new function for that; it's doing something distinct.



C& func_reg()

static C obj(0);
return obj;


C func_reg(const int i)

return C(i);






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    There's nothing left with automatic storage then, right?

    – YSC
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:35











  • @YSC: Nope but I'm wilfully dropping that requirement because I don't really understand its value. Speaking functionally, that is. OP does allow for dynamic allocation as long as things are cleaned up automatically.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:35












  • From OP's last comment, I fully agree. +1.

    – YSC
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:36






  • 1





    @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Maybe but now we're really in the realm of me not understanding what problem you're trying to solve, sorry.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:39






  • 1





    You made me realize that I had not mapped my problem well to the question. I have edited the question to reflect that, hopefully this is the right approach in this case rather than asking a new one.

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:09















6














I don't really understand the purpose of the static/automatic stuff. If all you're trying to do is avoid repeated constructions when the argument has been used before, why not just have a cache instead?



C& func_reg(const int i)

static std::unordered_map<int, C> cache;
auto it = cache.find(i);
if (it == cache.end())
it = cache.emplace(i, C(i));

return it->second;



Don't always want the cache? Fine! Add this:



C func_reg_nocache(const int i)

return C(i);




If I've misunderstood and you really need this thing where passing is_static == true gives you an entirely different object (one constructed with 0 rather than i) then just make a new function for that; it's doing something distinct.



C& func_reg()

static C obj(0);
return obj;


C func_reg(const int i)

return C(i);






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    There's nothing left with automatic storage then, right?

    – YSC
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:35











  • @YSC: Nope but I'm wilfully dropping that requirement because I don't really understand its value. Speaking functionally, that is. OP does allow for dynamic allocation as long as things are cleaned up automatically.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:35












  • From OP's last comment, I fully agree. +1.

    – YSC
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:36






  • 1





    @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Maybe but now we're really in the realm of me not understanding what problem you're trying to solve, sorry.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:39






  • 1





    You made me realize that I had not mapped my problem well to the question. I have edited the question to reflect that, hopefully this is the right approach in this case rather than asking a new one.

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:09













6












6








6







I don't really understand the purpose of the static/automatic stuff. If all you're trying to do is avoid repeated constructions when the argument has been used before, why not just have a cache instead?



C& func_reg(const int i)

static std::unordered_map<int, C> cache;
auto it = cache.find(i);
if (it == cache.end())
it = cache.emplace(i, C(i));

return it->second;



Don't always want the cache? Fine! Add this:



C func_reg_nocache(const int i)

return C(i);




If I've misunderstood and you really need this thing where passing is_static == true gives you an entirely different object (one constructed with 0 rather than i) then just make a new function for that; it's doing something distinct.



C& func_reg()

static C obj(0);
return obj;


C func_reg(const int i)

return C(i);






share|improve this answer















I don't really understand the purpose of the static/automatic stuff. If all you're trying to do is avoid repeated constructions when the argument has been used before, why not just have a cache instead?



C& func_reg(const int i)

static std::unordered_map<int, C> cache;
auto it = cache.find(i);
if (it == cache.end())
it = cache.emplace(i, C(i));

return it->second;



Don't always want the cache? Fine! Add this:



C func_reg_nocache(const int i)

return C(i);




If I've misunderstood and you really need this thing where passing is_static == true gives you an entirely different object (one constructed with 0 rather than i) then just make a new function for that; it's doing something distinct.



C& func_reg()

static C obj(0);
return obj;


C func_reg(const int i)

return C(i);







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 14 '18 at 16:46

























answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:34









Lightness Races in OrbitLightness Races in Orbit

292k52475808




292k52475808







  • 1





    There's nothing left with automatic storage then, right?

    – YSC
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:35











  • @YSC: Nope but I'm wilfully dropping that requirement because I don't really understand its value. Speaking functionally, that is. OP does allow for dynamic allocation as long as things are cleaned up automatically.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:35












  • From OP's last comment, I fully agree. +1.

    – YSC
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:36






  • 1





    @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Maybe but now we're really in the realm of me not understanding what problem you're trying to solve, sorry.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:39






  • 1





    You made me realize that I had not mapped my problem well to the question. I have edited the question to reflect that, hopefully this is the right approach in this case rather than asking a new one.

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:09












  • 1





    There's nothing left with automatic storage then, right?

    – YSC
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:35











  • @YSC: Nope but I'm wilfully dropping that requirement because I don't really understand its value. Speaking functionally, that is. OP does allow for dynamic allocation as long as things are cleaned up automatically.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:35












  • From OP's last comment, I fully agree. +1.

    – YSC
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:36






  • 1





    @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Maybe but now we're really in the realm of me not understanding what problem you're trying to solve, sorry.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:39






  • 1





    You made me realize that I had not mapped my problem well to the question. I have edited the question to reflect that, hopefully this is the right approach in this case rather than asking a new one.

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:09







1




1





There's nothing left with automatic storage then, right?

– YSC
Nov 14 '18 at 16:35





There's nothing left with automatic storage then, right?

– YSC
Nov 14 '18 at 16:35













@YSC: Nope but I'm wilfully dropping that requirement because I don't really understand its value. Speaking functionally, that is. OP does allow for dynamic allocation as long as things are cleaned up automatically.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 14 '18 at 16:35






@YSC: Nope but I'm wilfully dropping that requirement because I don't really understand its value. Speaking functionally, that is. OP does allow for dynamic allocation as long as things are cleaned up automatically.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 14 '18 at 16:35














From OP's last comment, I fully agree. +1.

– YSC
Nov 14 '18 at 16:36





From OP's last comment, I fully agree. +1.

– YSC
Nov 14 '18 at 16:36




1




1





@CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Maybe but now we're really in the realm of me not understanding what problem you're trying to solve, sorry.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 14 '18 at 16:39





@CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Maybe but now we're really in the realm of me not understanding what problem you're trying to solve, sorry.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 14 '18 at 16:39




1




1





You made me realize that I had not mapped my problem well to the question. I have edited the question to reflect that, hopefully this is the right approach in this case rather than asking a new one.

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
Nov 14 '18 at 17:09





You made me realize that I had not mapped my problem well to the question. I have edited the question to reflect that, hopefully this is the right approach in this case rather than asking a new one.

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
Nov 14 '18 at 17:09













4














The returned object may refer to a preexisting object depending on an opaque criteria. This implies that the function needs to return by reference. But since the storage for an uncached value must outlive the function and not be on the heap, the caller needs to preemptively provide the storage on the stack for the returned object.



C& func_reg_maybe_static(int i, void* buf)

static C c(0);
if(i == 0)
return c;
else
return *new (buf) C(i);


using uninit_C = std::aligned_storage<sizeof(C), alignof(C)>;
uninit_C buf;
auto& c = func_reg_maybe_static(i, &buf);


This requires a manual destructor call further down the line if and only if the destructor has side effects. Another take would be



C& func_reg_maybe_static(int i, C& buf)

static C c(0);
if(i == 0)
return c;
else

buf.~C();
return *new (&buf) C(i); // note below



C buf;
auto& c = func_reg_maybe_static(i, buf);


This version obviously requires C be default constructible. The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C. The destructor will be called on scope exit.






share|improve this answer

























  • Why do we need return *new (buf) C(i);, and not just return C(i) in the else statement?

    – Sahil Dhoked
    Nov 14 '18 at 18:55











  • @SahilDhoked We return by reference.

    – Passer By
    Nov 14 '18 at 18:56











  • Cool, I didn't know about placement new. Can you clarify "The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C.": when is it now legal?

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 15 '18 at 4:59











  • @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Link added.

    – Passer By
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:12






  • 1





    @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 And I'm sorry about the billion edits, I wasn't all that awake when I wrote this.

    – Passer By
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:21















4














The returned object may refer to a preexisting object depending on an opaque criteria. This implies that the function needs to return by reference. But since the storage for an uncached value must outlive the function and not be on the heap, the caller needs to preemptively provide the storage on the stack for the returned object.



C& func_reg_maybe_static(int i, void* buf)

static C c(0);
if(i == 0)
return c;
else
return *new (buf) C(i);


using uninit_C = std::aligned_storage<sizeof(C), alignof(C)>;
uninit_C buf;
auto& c = func_reg_maybe_static(i, &buf);


This requires a manual destructor call further down the line if and only if the destructor has side effects. Another take would be



C& func_reg_maybe_static(int i, C& buf)

static C c(0);
if(i == 0)
return c;
else

buf.~C();
return *new (&buf) C(i); // note below



C buf;
auto& c = func_reg_maybe_static(i, buf);


This version obviously requires C be default constructible. The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C. The destructor will be called on scope exit.






share|improve this answer

























  • Why do we need return *new (buf) C(i);, and not just return C(i) in the else statement?

    – Sahil Dhoked
    Nov 14 '18 at 18:55











  • @SahilDhoked We return by reference.

    – Passer By
    Nov 14 '18 at 18:56











  • Cool, I didn't know about placement new. Can you clarify "The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C.": when is it now legal?

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 15 '18 at 4:59











  • @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Link added.

    – Passer By
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:12






  • 1





    @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 And I'm sorry about the billion edits, I wasn't all that awake when I wrote this.

    – Passer By
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:21













4












4








4







The returned object may refer to a preexisting object depending on an opaque criteria. This implies that the function needs to return by reference. But since the storage for an uncached value must outlive the function and not be on the heap, the caller needs to preemptively provide the storage on the stack for the returned object.



C& func_reg_maybe_static(int i, void* buf)

static C c(0);
if(i == 0)
return c;
else
return *new (buf) C(i);


using uninit_C = std::aligned_storage<sizeof(C), alignof(C)>;
uninit_C buf;
auto& c = func_reg_maybe_static(i, &buf);


This requires a manual destructor call further down the line if and only if the destructor has side effects. Another take would be



C& func_reg_maybe_static(int i, C& buf)

static C c(0);
if(i == 0)
return c;
else

buf.~C();
return *new (&buf) C(i); // note below



C buf;
auto& c = func_reg_maybe_static(i, buf);


This version obviously requires C be default constructible. The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C. The destructor will be called on scope exit.






share|improve this answer















The returned object may refer to a preexisting object depending on an opaque criteria. This implies that the function needs to return by reference. But since the storage for an uncached value must outlive the function and not be on the heap, the caller needs to preemptively provide the storage on the stack for the returned object.



C& func_reg_maybe_static(int i, void* buf)

static C c(0);
if(i == 0)
return c;
else
return *new (buf) C(i);


using uninit_C = std::aligned_storage<sizeof(C), alignof(C)>;
uninit_C buf;
auto& c = func_reg_maybe_static(i, &buf);


This requires a manual destructor call further down the line if and only if the destructor has side effects. Another take would be



C& func_reg_maybe_static(int i, C& buf)

static C c(0);
if(i == 0)
return c;
else

buf.~C();
return *new (&buf) C(i); // note below



C buf;
auto& c = func_reg_maybe_static(i, buf);


This version obviously requires C be default constructible. The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C. The destructor will be called on scope exit.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 15 '18 at 7:19

























answered Nov 14 '18 at 18:33









Passer ByPasser By

9,92432558




9,92432558












  • Why do we need return *new (buf) C(i);, and not just return C(i) in the else statement?

    – Sahil Dhoked
    Nov 14 '18 at 18:55











  • @SahilDhoked We return by reference.

    – Passer By
    Nov 14 '18 at 18:56











  • Cool, I didn't know about placement new. Can you clarify "The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C.": when is it now legal?

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 15 '18 at 4:59











  • @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Link added.

    – Passer By
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:12






  • 1





    @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 And I'm sorry about the billion edits, I wasn't all that awake when I wrote this.

    – Passer By
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:21

















  • Why do we need return *new (buf) C(i);, and not just return C(i) in the else statement?

    – Sahil Dhoked
    Nov 14 '18 at 18:55











  • @SahilDhoked We return by reference.

    – Passer By
    Nov 14 '18 at 18:56











  • Cool, I didn't know about placement new. Can you clarify "The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C.": when is it now legal?

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 15 '18 at 4:59











  • @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Link added.

    – Passer By
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:12






  • 1





    @CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 And I'm sorry about the billion edits, I wasn't all that awake when I wrote this.

    – Passer By
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:21
















Why do we need return *new (buf) C(i);, and not just return C(i) in the else statement?

– Sahil Dhoked
Nov 14 '18 at 18:55





Why do we need return *new (buf) C(i);, and not just return C(i) in the else statement?

– Sahil Dhoked
Nov 14 '18 at 18:55













@SahilDhoked We return by reference.

– Passer By
Nov 14 '18 at 18:56





@SahilDhoked We return by reference.

– Passer By
Nov 14 '18 at 18:56













Cool, I didn't know about placement new. Can you clarify "The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C.": when is it now legal?

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
Nov 15 '18 at 4:59





Cool, I didn't know about placement new. Can you clarify "The placement new is perfectly legal, but using buf after the function call may or may not be legal depending on the contents of C.": when is it now legal?

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
Nov 15 '18 at 4:59













@CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Link added.

– Passer By
Nov 15 '18 at 7:12





@CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 Link added.

– Passer By
Nov 15 '18 at 7:12




1




1





@CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 And I'm sorry about the billion edits, I wasn't all that awake when I wrote this.

– Passer By
Nov 15 '18 at 7:21





@CiroSantilli新疆改造中心六四事件法轮功 And I'm sorry about the billion edits, I wasn't all that awake when I wrote this.

– Passer By
Nov 15 '18 at 7:21











3














What you want is essentially a variant:



std::variant<C, C*> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)

static C static_obj 0 ;
if (i == 0)
return &static_obj;
else
return std::variant<C, C*> std::inplace_type_t<C>, i ;




This has the advantage of not requiring any additional memory allocations (compared to the shared_ptr approach). But it is somewhat inconvenient to use on the caller side. We could work around this by writing a wrapper class:



template <class C> class value_or_ptr

std::variant<C, C*> object_;
public:
explicit template <class... Params> value_or_ptr(Params&&... parameters)
: object_(std::inplace_type_t<C>, std::forward<Params>(parameters)...)

explicit value_or_ptr(C* object)
: object_(object)

// other constructors...

C& operator*()

return object_.index() == 0 ? std::get<0>(object_) : *std::get<1>(object_);


// other accessors...



If you don't have a C++17 compiler, the same can be done with unions, but the implementation will of course be more complex. The original function then becomes:



value_or_ptr<C> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)

static C static_obj 0 ;
if (i == 0)
return value_or_ptr &static_obj ;
else
return value_or_ptr i ;




Contrast with Overloads



We could achieve similar results with function overloads:



C& func_reg()

static C obj 0 ;
return obj;


C func_reg(const int i)

return C i ;



This has the advantage of being simpler but might require the caller to make a copy. It also requires the caller to know if a pre-computed object will be returned (which is undesirable). With the variant approach, the caller can treat the results uniformly. The caller always gets back an object with value semantics and does not need to know if he will receive a pre-computed object.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    How this overcomplicated way is better than use std::shared_ptr, which is pretty obvious?

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:41






  • 2





    This avoids unnecessary heap allocations.

    – Peter Ruderman
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:41











  • Or just two separate functions, one returning C& and the other returning C! I don't see the need for shared_ptr at all. I must be missing something.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:43












  • It can be done much simpler way - std::shared_ptr pointing to static object if that is really necessary. I doubt it is.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:43






  • 1





    I have updated the question to prevent cheating with different interfaces :-) Sorry for the mess.

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:11















3














What you want is essentially a variant:



std::variant<C, C*> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)

static C static_obj 0 ;
if (i == 0)
return &static_obj;
else
return std::variant<C, C*> std::inplace_type_t<C>, i ;




This has the advantage of not requiring any additional memory allocations (compared to the shared_ptr approach). But it is somewhat inconvenient to use on the caller side. We could work around this by writing a wrapper class:



template <class C> class value_or_ptr

std::variant<C, C*> object_;
public:
explicit template <class... Params> value_or_ptr(Params&&... parameters)
: object_(std::inplace_type_t<C>, std::forward<Params>(parameters)...)

explicit value_or_ptr(C* object)
: object_(object)

// other constructors...

C& operator*()

return object_.index() == 0 ? std::get<0>(object_) : *std::get<1>(object_);


// other accessors...



If you don't have a C++17 compiler, the same can be done with unions, but the implementation will of course be more complex. The original function then becomes:



value_or_ptr<C> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)

static C static_obj 0 ;
if (i == 0)
return value_or_ptr &static_obj ;
else
return value_or_ptr i ;




Contrast with Overloads



We could achieve similar results with function overloads:



C& func_reg()

static C obj 0 ;
return obj;


C func_reg(const int i)

return C i ;



This has the advantage of being simpler but might require the caller to make a copy. It also requires the caller to know if a pre-computed object will be returned (which is undesirable). With the variant approach, the caller can treat the results uniformly. The caller always gets back an object with value semantics and does not need to know if he will receive a pre-computed object.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    How this overcomplicated way is better than use std::shared_ptr, which is pretty obvious?

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:41






  • 2





    This avoids unnecessary heap allocations.

    – Peter Ruderman
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:41











  • Or just two separate functions, one returning C& and the other returning C! I don't see the need for shared_ptr at all. I must be missing something.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:43












  • It can be done much simpler way - std::shared_ptr pointing to static object if that is really necessary. I doubt it is.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:43






  • 1





    I have updated the question to prevent cheating with different interfaces :-) Sorry for the mess.

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:11













3












3








3







What you want is essentially a variant:



std::variant<C, C*> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)

static C static_obj 0 ;
if (i == 0)
return &static_obj;
else
return std::variant<C, C*> std::inplace_type_t<C>, i ;




This has the advantage of not requiring any additional memory allocations (compared to the shared_ptr approach). But it is somewhat inconvenient to use on the caller side. We could work around this by writing a wrapper class:



template <class C> class value_or_ptr

std::variant<C, C*> object_;
public:
explicit template <class... Params> value_or_ptr(Params&&... parameters)
: object_(std::inplace_type_t<C>, std::forward<Params>(parameters)...)

explicit value_or_ptr(C* object)
: object_(object)

// other constructors...

C& operator*()

return object_.index() == 0 ? std::get<0>(object_) : *std::get<1>(object_);


// other accessors...



If you don't have a C++17 compiler, the same can be done with unions, but the implementation will of course be more complex. The original function then becomes:



value_or_ptr<C> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)

static C static_obj 0 ;
if (i == 0)
return value_or_ptr &static_obj ;
else
return value_or_ptr i ;




Contrast with Overloads



We could achieve similar results with function overloads:



C& func_reg()

static C obj 0 ;
return obj;


C func_reg(const int i)

return C i ;



This has the advantage of being simpler but might require the caller to make a copy. It also requires the caller to know if a pre-computed object will be returned (which is undesirable). With the variant approach, the caller can treat the results uniformly. The caller always gets back an object with value semantics and does not need to know if he will receive a pre-computed object.






share|improve this answer















What you want is essentially a variant:



std::variant<C, C*> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)

static C static_obj 0 ;
if (i == 0)
return &static_obj;
else
return std::variant<C, C*> std::inplace_type_t<C>, i ;




This has the advantage of not requiring any additional memory allocations (compared to the shared_ptr approach). But it is somewhat inconvenient to use on the caller side. We could work around this by writing a wrapper class:



template <class C> class value_or_ptr

std::variant<C, C*> object_;
public:
explicit template <class... Params> value_or_ptr(Params&&... parameters)
: object_(std::inplace_type_t<C>, std::forward<Params>(parameters)...)

explicit value_or_ptr(C* object)
: object_(object)

// other constructors...

C& operator*()

return object_.index() == 0 ? std::get<0>(object_) : *std::get<1>(object_);


// other accessors...



If you don't have a C++17 compiler, the same can be done with unions, but the implementation will of course be more complex. The original function then becomes:



value_or_ptr<C> func_reg_maybe_static(int i)

static C static_obj 0 ;
if (i == 0)
return value_or_ptr &static_obj ;
else
return value_or_ptr i ;




Contrast with Overloads



We could achieve similar results with function overloads:



C& func_reg()

static C obj 0 ;
return obj;


C func_reg(const int i)

return C i ;



This has the advantage of being simpler but might require the caller to make a copy. It also requires the caller to know if a pre-computed object will be returned (which is undesirable). With the variant approach, the caller can treat the results uniformly. The caller always gets back an object with value semantics and does not need to know if he will receive a pre-computed object.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 14 '18 at 21:31

























answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:39









Peter RudermanPeter Ruderman

10.2k2352




10.2k2352







  • 1





    How this overcomplicated way is better than use std::shared_ptr, which is pretty obvious?

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:41






  • 2





    This avoids unnecessary heap allocations.

    – Peter Ruderman
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:41











  • Or just two separate functions, one returning C& and the other returning C! I don't see the need for shared_ptr at all. I must be missing something.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:43












  • It can be done much simpler way - std::shared_ptr pointing to static object if that is really necessary. I doubt it is.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:43






  • 1





    I have updated the question to prevent cheating with different interfaces :-) Sorry for the mess.

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:11












  • 1





    How this overcomplicated way is better than use std::shared_ptr, which is pretty obvious?

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:41






  • 2





    This avoids unnecessary heap allocations.

    – Peter Ruderman
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:41











  • Or just two separate functions, one returning C& and the other returning C! I don't see the need for shared_ptr at all. I must be missing something.

    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:43












  • It can be done much simpler way - std::shared_ptr pointing to static object if that is really necessary. I doubt it is.

    – Slava
    Nov 14 '18 at 16:43






  • 1





    I have updated the question to prevent cheating with different interfaces :-) Sorry for the mess.

    – Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:11







1




1





How this overcomplicated way is better than use std::shared_ptr, which is pretty obvious?

– Slava
Nov 14 '18 at 16:41





How this overcomplicated way is better than use std::shared_ptr, which is pretty obvious?

– Slava
Nov 14 '18 at 16:41




2




2





This avoids unnecessary heap allocations.

– Peter Ruderman
Nov 14 '18 at 16:41





This avoids unnecessary heap allocations.

– Peter Ruderman
Nov 14 '18 at 16:41













Or just two separate functions, one returning C& and the other returning C! I don't see the need for shared_ptr at all. I must be missing something.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 14 '18 at 16:43






Or just two separate functions, one returning C& and the other returning C! I don't see the need for shared_ptr at all. I must be missing something.

– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 14 '18 at 16:43














It can be done much simpler way - std::shared_ptr pointing to static object if that is really necessary. I doubt it is.

– Slava
Nov 14 '18 at 16:43





It can be done much simpler way - std::shared_ptr pointing to static object if that is really necessary. I doubt it is.

– Slava
Nov 14 '18 at 16:43




1




1





I have updated the question to prevent cheating with different interfaces :-) Sorry for the mess.

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
Nov 14 '18 at 17:11





I have updated the question to prevent cheating with different interfaces :-) Sorry for the mess.

– Ciro Santilli 新疆改造中心 六四事件 法轮功
Nov 14 '18 at 17:11

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53304666%2fhow-to-make-a-function-that-can-return-either-a-static-or-automatic-storage-obje%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to read a connectionString WITH PROVIDER in .NET Core?

Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Trento and Rovereto

In R, how to develop a multiplot heatmap.2 figure showing key labels successfully