It seemed like we're doomed...
Yet we barely escaped our horrid fate, because the C++ structured bindings happen to look also for get<i> member functions!
Any other solution involving a free function `get<i>(h)` would not work, since the `std::tuple` used as base class would inevitably drag in std::get via ADL
Obviously, the other remedy would be to turn the `StorageFrame` into a member; yet doing so is not desirable, as makes the actual storage layout more obscure (and also more brittle)
Actually it is the implementation of `std::get` from our STL implementation
which causes the problems; our new custom implementation works as intended an
would also be picked by the compiler's overload resolution. But unfortunately,
the bounds checking assertion built into std::tuple_element<I,T> triggers
immediately when instantiated with out-of-bounds argument, which happens
during the preparation of overload resolution, even while the compiler
would pick another implementation in the following routine.
So we're out of luck and need to find a workaround...
Why is our specialisation of `std::get` not picked up by the compiler?
* it must somehow be related to the fact that `std::tuple` itself is a base class of lib::HeteroData
* if we remove this inheritance relation, our specialisation is used by the compiler and works as intended
* however, this strange behaviour can not be reproduced in a simple synthetic setup
It must be some further subtlety which marks the tuple case as preferrable
We use the memory address to detect reference to ''the same language object.''
While primarily a testing tool, this predicate is also used in the
core application at places, especially to prevent self-assignment
and to handle custom allocations.
It turns out that actually we need two flavours for convenient usage
- `isSameObject` uses strict comparison of address and accepts only references
- `isSameAdr` can also accept pointers and even void*, but will dereference pointers
This leads to some further improvements of helper utilities related to memory addresses...
It seams indicated to verify the generated connectivity
and the hash calculation and recalculation explicitly
at least for one example topology; choosing a topology
comprised of several sub-graphs, to also verify the
propagation of seed values to further start-nodes.
In order to avoid addressing nodes directly by index number,
those sub-graphs can be processed by ''grouping of nodes'';
all parts are congruent because topology is determined by
the node hashes and thus a regular pattern can be exploited.
To allow for easy processing of groups, I have developed a
simplistic grouping device within the IterExplorer framework.
The idea is to use some source of randomness to pick a
limited parameter value with controllable probability.
While the core of the implementation is nothing more
than some simple numeric adjustments, these turn out
to be rather intricate and obscure; the desire to
package these technicalities into a component
however necessitates to make invocations
at usage site self explanatory.
This might seem totally overblown -- but already the development
of this prototype showed me time and again, that it is warranted.
Because it is damn hard to get the probabilities and the mappings
to fixed output values correct.
After in-depth analysis, I decided completely to abandon the
initially chosen approach with the Cap helper, where the user
just specifies an upper and lower bound. While this seems
compellingly simple at start, it directly lures into writing
hard-to-understand code tied to the implementation logic.
With the changed approach, most code should get along rather with
auto myRule = Draw().probabilty(0.6).maxVal(4);
...which is obviously a thousand times more legible than
any kind of tricky modulus expressions with shifted bounds.
While the Cap-Helper introduced yesterday was already a step in the
right direction, I had considerable difficulties picking the correct
parameters for the upper/lower bounds and the divisor for random generation
so as to match an intended probability profile. Since this tool shall be
used for load testing, an easier to handle notation will both help
with focusing on the main tasks and later to document the test cases.
Thus engaging (again) into the DSL building game...
The approach to provide the ExecutionCtx seems to work out well;
after some investigation I found a solution how to code a generic
signature-check for "any kind of function-like member"...
(the trick is to pass a pointer or member-pointer, which happens
to be syntactically the same and can be handled with our existing
function signature helper after some minor tweaks)
Complete the investigation and turn the solution into a generic
mix-in-template, which can be used in flexible ways to support
this qualifier notation.
Moreover, recapitulate requirements for the ElementBoxWidget
Basically we want to create ElementBoxWidgets according to a
preconfigured layout scheme, yet we'll need to pass some additional
qualifiers and optional features, and these need to be checked
and used in accordance with the chosen flavour...
Investigating a possible solution based on additional ctor parameters,
which are given as "algebraic terms", and actually wrap a functor
to manipulate a builder configuration record
...by relying on the newly implemented automatic standard binding
Looks like a significant improvement for me, now the actual bindings
only details aspects, which are related to the target, and no longer
such technicalitis like how to place a Child-Mutator into a buffer handle
...when rendering this part, which shall be always visible.
And the rest of the profile needs to be rendered into a second canvas,
which is placed within a pane with scrollbar.
Implemented as a statefull iterator filter
the template lib::PolymorphicValue seemingly picked the wrong
implementation strategy for "virtual copy support": In fact it is possible
to use the optimal strategy here, since our interface inherits from CloneSupport,
yet the metaprogramming logic picked the mix-in-adapter (which requires one additional "slot"
of storage plus a dynamic_cast at runtime).
The reason for this malfunction was the fact that we used META_DETECT_FUNCTION
to detect the presence of a clone-support-function. This is not correct, since
it can only detect a function in the *same* class, not an inherited function.
Thus, switching to META_DETECT_FUNCTION_NAME solves this problem
Well, this solution has some downsides, but since I intend to rewrite the
whole virtual copy support (#1197) anyway, I'll deem this acceptable for now
TODO / WIP: still some diagnostics code to clean up, plus a better solution for the EmptyBase
...yet still not successful.
The mechanism used for std::apply(tuple&) works fine when applied directly to the target function,
but fails to select the proper overload when passed to a std::forward-call for
"perfect forwarding". I tried again to re-build the situation of std::forward
with an explicitly coded function, but failed in the end to supply a type parameter
to std::forward suitably for all possible cases
...the simplified demo variant in try.cpp is accepted by the compiler and works as intended,
while the seemingly equivalent construction in verb-visitor.hpp is rejected by the compiler
This discrepancy might lead to a solution....?
A simple yet weird workaround (and basically equivalent to our helper function)
is to wrap the argument tuple itself into std::forward<Args> -- which has the
effect of exposing RValue references to the forwarding function, thus silencing
the compiler.
I am not happy with this result, since it contradicts the notion of perfect forwarding.
As an asside, the ressearch has sorted out some secondary suspicions..
- it is *not* the Varargs argument pack as such
- it is *not* the VerbToken type as such
The problem clearly is related to exposing tuple elements to a forwarding function.
basically this is similar to std::invoke...
However, we can not yet use std::invoke, and in addition to this,
the actual situation is somewhat more contrieved, so even using std::invoke
would require to inject another argument into the passed argument tuple.
In the previous commit, I more or less blindly coded some solution,
while I did not fully understand the complaints of the compiler and why
it finally passed. I still have some doubts that I am in fact moving the
contents out of the tuple, which would lead to insidious errors on
repeated invocation.
Thus this invstigation here, starting from a clean slate textbook implementation
(ab)using the Lumiera tree here for research work on behalf of the Yoshimi project
For context, we stumbled over sonic changes due to using different random number algorighims,
in spite of all those algorithms producing mathematically sane numbers
As it turns out, using the functional-notation form conversion
with *parentheses* will fall back on a C-style (wild, re-interpret) cast
when the target type is *not* a class. As in the case in question here, where
it is a const& to a class. To the contrary, using *curly braces* will always
attempt to go through a constructor, and thus fail as expected, when there is
no conversion path available.
I wasn't aware of that pitfall. I noticed it since the recently introduced
class TimelineGui lacked a conversion operator to BareEntryID const& and just
happily used the TimelineGui object itself and did a reinterpret_cast into BareEntryID
this is a (hopefully just temporary) workaround to deal with static initialisation
ordering problems. The original solution was cleaner from a code readability viewpoint,
however, when lib::Depend was used from static initialisation code, it could
be observed that the factory constructor was invoked after first use.
And while this did not interfer with the instance lifecycle management itself,
because the zero-initialisation of the instance (atomic) pointer did happen
beforehand, it would discard any special factory functions installed from such
a context (and this counts as bug for my taste).
indicates rather questionable behaviour.
The standard demands a templated static field to be defined before first odr-use.
IIRC, it even demands a static field to be initialised prior to use in a ctor.
But here the definition of the templated static member field is dropped off even after
the definition of another static field, which uses the (templated) Front-end-class
in its initialiser.
- state-of-the-art implementation of access with Double Checked Locking + Atomics
- improved design for configuration of dependencies. Now at the provider, not the consumer
- support for exposing services with a lifecycle through the lib::Depend<SRV> front-end
This is essentially the solution we used since start of the Lumiera project.
This solution is not entirely correct in theory, because the assignment to the
instance pointer can be visible prior to releasing the Mutex -- so another thread
might see a partially initialised object
_not_ using the dependency factory, rather direct access
- to a shared object in the enclosing stack frame
- to a heap allocated existing object accessed through uniqe_ptr
This is a complete makeover of our lib::Depend and lib::DependencyFactory templates.
While retaining the basic idea, the configuration has been completely rewritten
to favour configuration at the point where a service is provided rather,
than at the point where a dependency is used.
Note: we use differently named headers, so the entire Lumiera
code base still uses the old implementation. Next step will be
to switch the tests (which should be drop-in)
explicit friendship seems adequate here
DependInject<SRV> becomes more or less a hidden part of Depend<SRV>,
but I prefer to bundle all those quite technical details in a separate
header, and close to the usage
This is a tricky problem an an immediate consequence of the dynamic configuration
favoured by this design. We avoid a centralised configuration and thus there
are no automatic rules to enforce consistency. It would thus be possible
to start using a dependency in singleton style, but to switch to service
style later, after the fact.
An attempt was made to prevent such a mismatch by static initialisiation;
basically the presence of any Depend<SRV>::ServiceInstance<X> would disable
any usage of Depend<SRV> in singleton style. However, such a mechanism
was found to be fragile at best. It seems more apropriate just to fail
when establishing a ServiceInstance on a dependency already actively in
use (and to lock usage after destroying the ServiceInstance).
This issue is considered rather an architectural one, which can not be
solved by any mechanism at implementation level ever
up to now we used placement into a static buffer.
While this approach is somewhat cool, I can't see much practical benefit anymore,
given that we use an elaborate framework which rules out the use of Meyers Singleton.
And given that with C++11 we're able just to use std::unique_ptr to do all work.
Moreover, the intended configurability will become much simpler by relying
on a _closure_ to produce a heap-allocated instance for all cases likewise.
The only possible problem I can see is that critical infrastructure might
rely on failsafe creation of some singleton. Up to now this scenario
remains theoretical however
Meyers Singleton is elegant and fast and considered the default solution
However...
- we want an "instance" pointer that can be rebound and reset,
and thus we are forced to use an explicit Mutex and an atomic variable.
And the situation is such that the optimiser can not detect/verify this usage
and thus generates a spurious additional lock for Meyers Singleton
- we want the option to destroy our singletons explicitly
- we need to create an abstracted closure for the ctor invocation
- we need a compiletime-branch to exclude code generation for invoking
the ctor of an abstract baseclass or interface
All those points would be somehow manageable, but would counterfeit the
simplicity of Meyers Singleton
Problems:
- using Meyers Singleton plus a ClassLock;
This is wasteful, since the compiler will emit additional synchronisation
and will likely not be able to detect the presence of our explicit locking guard
- what happens if the Meyers Singleton can not even be instantiated, e.g. for
an abstract baseclass? We are required to install an explicit subclass configuration
in that case, but the compiler is not able to see this will happen, when just
compiling the lib::Depend
