c++ - Is there a caveat for using placement new instead of move assignment for a emplace_back imitation on a static array - Stac

admin管理员组

文章数量:1350033

I was trying to implement an emplace_back method for a statically-sized array (for fun). I came across the problem of whether I should use placement-new or move assignment for this emplace back method.

I have a class point that is meant to represent some generic class that has a non-trivial move assignment operator, copy assignment operator, move constructor, copy constructor AND default constructor. Each of these operators/constructors output a unique string to signify it has been called.

#include <utility>
#include <cstdio>
#include <new>

struct point{
    int X; int Y;
    point(): X(0), Y(0) {
        printf("D ");
    }
    point(int X, int Y): X(X), Y(Y) {
        printf("P ");
    }
    point(const point& Point): X(Point.X), Y(Point.Y) {
        printf("C ");
    }
    point(point&& Point): X(Point.X), Y(Point.Y) {
        printf("M ");
    }
    point& operator=(const point& Point){ 
        X=Point.X; 
        Y=Point.Y; 
        printf("CA "); 
        return *this;
    }
    point& operator=(point&& Point){
        X=Point.X; 
        Y=Point.Y; 
        printf("MA "); 
        return *this;
    }
    ~point(){
        printf("DS ");
    }
};

I have a template class array that accepts a generic type element and stores a static array of elements.

For this array class, I have implemented two versions of emplace_back for a static array:

• One called EmplaceBackMA that calls the constructor of element then move assigns the instance of element to the front of the array
• Another called EmplaceBackPN that calls the destructor of the element at the front of the array then uses placement new to instantiate a new instance of element at the front of the array.

template <typename element>
struct array {
    public:
        element Buffer[10];
        size_t Size = 0;
    public:
        template<typename... ctorargs>
        void EmplaceBackMA(ctorargs&&... Args){
            Buffer[Size] = element(std::forward<ctorargs>(Args)...);
            ++Size;
        }
        template<typename... ctorargs>
        void EmplaceBackPN(ctorargs&&... Args){
            Buffer[Size].~element();
            new(Buffer + Size) element(std::forward<ctorargs>(Args)...);
            ++Size;
        }
};

Upon testing both EmplaceBack implementations with the following code, i received the following output.

int main(){
    puts("Creating Particles");
    array<point> Particles; //DDDDDDDDDD
    puts("EmplaceBack");
    Particles.EmplaceBackC(4, 4);
    puts("\nEmplaceBackMA");
    Particles.EmplaceBackMA(4, 4); //P MA DS
    puts("\nEmplaceBackPN");
    Particles.EmplaceBackPN(4, 4); //DS P
    puts("\nEndingProgram");
    //Is Placement New Better?
}

Output:

Creating Particles
D D D D D D D D D D
EmplaceBackMA
P MA DS
EmplaceBackPN
DS P
EndingProgram
DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS

It seems that Placement New avoids creating a temporary instance of point so should probably be faster and probably better to use than Move Assignment.

My Question is: Is there a reason to prefer move assignment over placement new for the EmplaceBack method.

I will accept no or yes with a reason as an answer.

Following one of the comments, a new emplace back method, EmplaceBackC has been implemented that checks a class if nothrow constructible, before using EmplaceBackPN. Is there any other caveat for using Placement New is the EmplaceBackPN perfectly valid?

本文标签：