Subject: Re: [boost] [function] function wrapping with no exceptionsafetyguarantee
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-12 14:09:38
At Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:48:37 -0400,
Daniel Walker wrote:
> > I'm sorry if I missed something important here, but has everybody
> > really considered the consequences of Peter Dimov's post, where he
> > wrote:
> >> This example implies that unsafe_function is inherently more
> >> efficient, but this need not be so. An empty function may point to
> >> throw_bad_function_call instead of NULL.
> > One could swap out throw_bad_function_call for any behavior you like.
> unsafe_function is not inherently more efficient. In optimized object
> code (gcc -02 or MSVC Release mode) the difference between invoking
> unsafe_function or boost::function is minuscule (on the order of
> hundreds of picoseconds). Peter's post similarly relies on removing
> the NULL pointer check for performance gains. This may be a good idea
> or it may be a case of premature optimization; whether or not it
> improves performance depends on the compiler's optimization. But
> either way, efficiency is tangential to the issue of boost::function's
> dependency on Boost.Exception.
Is *that* the core issue here? Because it seems like the issue has
been about various other things earlier in this conversation.
> Also, swapping out throw_bad_function call does not directly address
> the boost::function/Boost.Exception coupling issue. If
> boost::function is going to offer a strong exception safety
> guarantee, then I believe Boost.Exception is the best way to
> implement that guarantee, no matter how boost::function gets around
> to calling boost::throw_exception. (I also think boost::function
> should continue to offer the strong guarantee.)
Which operation of boost::function are you talking about, that offers
the strong guarantee? And how can Boost.Exception be a way to achieve
the strong guarantee?
> But some users are asking for a function object wrapper that is not
> coupled with Boost.Exception.
> The simplest way to decouple them is to provide a function object
> wrapper without the strong exception safety guarantee.
> >> > <snip>
> >> > However, here http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/01/160908.php you
> >> > can see results that show a measurable difference when function<> is
> >> > configured to mark itself as nothrow...
> >> The goal of unsafe_function is not to provide a wrapper that doesn't
> >> throw, but to provide a wrapper with no exception safety guarantee.
> > If that's *really* its goal, unsafe_function is strictly unneeded.
> > boost::function already satisfies all your requirements (and more).
> boost::function always provides a strong exception safety guarantee.
> Specifically, if its preconditions are not met, it calls
That's not strong exception-safety. That's throwing an exception
where an assert belongs. :-(
> This is true whether or not the system has
> RTTI. This is great for some users, but others have asked for a
> function object wrapper that does not call boost::throw_exception. A
> simple way to meet this requirement is to provide a function object
> wrapper that is exception unsafe, like a typical function pointer for
> example, and that is what unsafe_function does.
IMO a better way to do it would be to make a function object that
has no empty state.
> > Â I think if you're looking to supply motivation for unsafe_function,
> > you'll need to describe the goal differently. ;-)
> How about this. Typically, function pointers have no RTTI dependency
> (and no dependency on Boost.Exception) and are exception unsafe.
In what sense are function pointers exception-unsafe?!
> unsafe_function is a function object wrapper that behaves more like
> a function pointer with respect to exception safety.
I am beginning to think you have a different definition of exception
safety from the rest of the world.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk