- decided to allow creating empty lib::Several;
no need to be overly rigid in this point,
since it is move-assignable anyway...
- populate with enough elements to provoke several reallocations
with copying over the existing elements
- precisely calculate and verify the expected allocation size
- verify the use-count due to dedicated allocator instances
being embedded into both the builder and hidden in the deleter
- move-assign data
- all checksums go to zero at end
The setup for `ArrayBucket` is special, insofar it shell de-allocate itself,
which creates the danger of re-entrant calls, or to the contrary, the danger
to invoke this clean-up function without actually invoking the destructor.
These problems become relevant once the destructor function itself is statefull,
as is the case when embedding a non-trivial, instance bound allocator
to be used for the clean-up work. Using the new `lib::TrackingAllocator`
highlighted this potential problem, since the allocator maintains a use-count.
Thus I decided to move the »destruction mechanics« one level down into
a dedicated and well encapsulated base class; invoking ArrayBucket's destructor
thereby becomes the only way to trigger the clean-up, and even ElementFactory::destroy()
can now safely check if the destructor was already invoked, and otherwise
re-invoke itself through this embedded destructor function. Moreover,
as an additional safety measure, the actual destructor function is now
moved into the local stack frame of the object's destructor call, removing
any possibility for the de-allocation to interfere with the destructor
invokation itself
While there might be the possibility to use the magic of the standard library,
it seems prudent rather to handle this insidious problem explicitly,
to make clear what is going on here.
To allow for such explicit alignment handling, I have now changed the
scheme of the storage definition; the actual buffer now starts ''behind''
the `ArrayBucket<I>` object, which thereby becomes a metadata managing header.
__To summarise the problem__: since we are maintaining a dynamically sized buffer,
and since we do not want to expose the actual element type through the
front-end object, we're necessarily bound to perform a raw-memory allocation.
This is denoted in bytes, and thus the allocator can no longer manage
the proper alignment automatically. Rather, we get a storage buffer with
just ''some accidental'' alignment, and we must care to request a sufficient
overhead to be able to shift the actual storage area forward to the next
proper alignment boundary. Obviously this also implies that we must
store this individual padding adjustment somewhere in the metadata,
in order to be able to report the correct size of the block later
on de-allocation.
The solution implemented thus far turns out to be not sufficient
for ''over-aligned-data'', as the raw-allocator can not perform the
''magic work'' because we're exposing only `std::byte` data.
...use some pointer arithmetic for this test to verify
some important cases of object placement empirically.
Note: there is possibly a very special problematic case
when ''over aligned objects'' are not placed in accordance
to their alignment requirements. Fixing this problem would
be non-trivial, and thus I have only left a note in #1204
- spread change now retains the nominal element reserve
- `capacity()` and `capReserve()` now exposed on the builder API
- factor out the handling check safety functions
- rewrite the `resize()` builder function to be more generic
__Test now covers__ example with trivial data type, which can
indeed be resized and allows to grow buffer on-the fly without
requiring any knowledge of the actual type (due to using `memmove`)
building on the preceding analysis, we can now demonstrate that
the container is initially able to grow, but looses this capability
after accepting one element of unknown subclass type...
Elements maintained within the storage should be placed such
as to comply with their alignment requirements; the element spacing
thus must be increased to be a multiple of the given type's alignment.
This solution works in most common cases, where the alignement is
not larger as the platform's bus width (typically 64bit); but for
''over-aligned types'' this scheme may still generate wrong object
start positions (a completely correct solution would require to
add a fixed offset to the beginning of the storage array and also
to capture the alignment requirements during population and to
re-check for each new type.
...and the nice thing is, the recently built `IterIndex` iteration wrapper
covers this functionality right away, simply because `lib::Several`
is a generic container with subscript operator.
...passes the simplest unit test
* create a Several<int>
* populate from `std::initializer_list`
* random-access to elements
''next step would be to implement iteration''
After some fruitless attempts, I settled for using std::function directly,
in order to establish a working baseline of this (tremendously complicated)
allocation logic. Storing a std::function in the ArrayBucket is certainly
wasteful (it costs 4 »slots« of memory), but has the upside that
it handles all those tricky corner cases magically; notably
the functor can be stored completely inline in the most relevant
case where the allocator is a monostate; moreover we bind a lambda,
which can be optimised very effectively, so that in the simplest case
there will be only the single indirection through the ''invoker''.
This **completes the code path for a simple usage cycle**
🠲 ''and hooray ... the test crashes with a double-free''
since this is meant as a policy implementation, reduce it to the bare operation;
the actual container storage handling logic shall be implemented in the container
and based on those primitive and configurable base operations
- verifies if new element can just fit in
- otherwise ensure the storage adjustments are basically possible
- throw exception in case the new element can not be accommodated
- else request possible storage adjustments
- and finally let the allocator place the new element
In-depth analysis of storage management revealed a misconception
with respect to possible storage optimisations, requiring more
metadata fields to handle all corner cases correctly.
It seems prudent to avoid any but the most obvious optimisations
and wait for real-world usage for a better understanding of the
prevalent access patterns. However, in preparation for any future
optimisations, all access coordination and storage metadata is
now relocated into the `ArrayBucket`, and thus resides within the
managed allocation, allowing for localised layout optimisations.
To place this into context: the expected prevalent use case is
for the »Render Nodes Network«, which relies on `AllocationCluster`
for storage management; most nodes will have only a single predecessor
or successor, leading to a large number of lib::Several intsances
populated with a single data element. In such a scenario, it is
indeed rather wasteful to allocate four »slot« of metadata for
each container instance; even more so since most of this
metadata is not even required in such a scenario.
...which basically ''seems doable'' now, yet turns up several unsolved problems
- need a way to handle excess storage for the raw allocation
- generally should relocate all metadata into the ArrayBucket
- mismatch at various APIs; must re-think where to pass size explicitly
- unclear yet how and where to pass the actual element type to create
- code spelled out as intended, according to generic scheme
- can now encode the »unmanaged« case directly as `null`-deleter,
because in all other cases a deleter function is mandatory now
- add default constructor to `ArrayBucket`, detailing the default spread
The fundamental decision is that we want to have a single generic front-end,
meaning that we must jump dynamically into a configured deleter function.
And on top of that comes the additional requirement that ''some allocators''
are in fact tied to a specific instance, while other allocators are monostate.
However, we can distinguish both by probing if the allocator can be default constructed,
and if a default constructed allocator is equivalent to the currently used alloctor instance.
If this test fails, we must indeed maintain a single allocator instance,
and (to avoid overengineering for this rather special use case) we will
place this allocator instance into heap memory then, with a self-cleanup mechanism
On the other hand, all monostate allocators can be handled through static trapolines.
- create by forwarding allocator arguments to policy
- builder-Op to append from iterator
- decide to collapse the ArrayBucket class, since
access is going through unsafe pointer arithmetic anyway
- favour dynamic polymorphism
- use additional memory for management data alongside the element allocation
- encode a flag and a deleter pointer to enable ownership of the allocation
- inherit base container privately into builder, so the build ends with a slice
Some decisions
- use a single template with policy base
- population via separate builder class
- implemented similar to vector (start/end)
- but able to hold larger (subclass) objects
At the time of the initial design attempts, I naively created a
classic interface to describe an fixed container allocated ''elsewhere.''
Meanwhile the C++ language has evolved and this whole idea looks
much more as if it could be a ''Concept'' (C++20). Moreover, having
several implementations of such a container interface is deemed inadequate,
since it would necessitate ''at least two indirections'' — while
going the Concept + Template route would allow to work without any
indirection, given our current understanding that the `ProcNode` itself
is ''not an interface'' — rather a building block.
