std::sort does not always call std::swap

后端 未结 3 1288
独厮守ぢ
独厮守ぢ 2020-11-27 21:51

Consider the following code:

#include 
#include 
#include 

namespace my_space
{

struct A
{
    double  a;
           


        
相关标签:
3条回答
  • 2020-11-27 21:52

    Depending on the type, swapping can be more expensive than a move-assignment (in C++98 a simple assignment). The standard library doesn't have any way to detect these cases. At least in C++11 the solution is clear: implement a move-assignment operator for all classes where you implement swap.

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-27 22:05

    I modified the code to be more verbose. The sorting for 20 elements uses many swaps, uses assignment end copy. Sorting for 4 elements uses only assignment and copy. Don't know about the specs, but it might be something to go on.

    #include <algorithm>
    #include <iostream>
    #include <vector>
    
    namespace my_space
    {
    
    struct A
    {
        double  a;
        double* b;
        A()
            : a(0)
            , b(NULL)
        { }
        A(const A &rhs)
            : a(rhs.a)
            , b(rhs.b)
        {
            std::cerr << "copy" << std::endl;
        }
        A& operator=(A const &rhs)
        {
            if(this==&rhs)
                    return *this;
            a = rhs.a;
            b = rhs.b;
            std::cerr << "=" << std::endl;
            return *this;
        }
        bool operator<(const A& rhs) const
        {
            return this->a < rhs.a;
        }
    };
    
    void swap(A& lhs, A& rhs)
    {
        std::cerr << "My swap.\n";
        std::swap(lhs.a, rhs.a);
        std::swap(lhs.b, rhs.b);
    }
    
    } // namespace my_space
    
    int main()
    {
        const int n = 20;
    
            std::cerr << "=== TEST CASE: n = " << n << std::endl;
        std::cerr << "=== FILL ===" << std::endl;
        std::vector<my_space::A> vec(n);
        for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
            vec[i].a = -i;
        }
    
        std::cerr << "=== PRINT ===" << std::endl;
        for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
            std::cerr << vec[i].a << " ";
        }
        std::cerr << "\n";
    
        std::cerr << "=== SORT ===" << std::endl;
        std::sort(vec.begin(), vec.end());
    
        std::cerr << "=== PRINT ===" << std::endl;
        for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
            std::cerr << vec[i].a << " ";
        }
        std::cerr << "\n";
    }
    

    Outputs

    === TEST CASE: n = 4
    === FILL ===
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    === PRINT ===
    0 -1 -2 -3
    === SORT ===
    copy
    =
    =
    copy
    =
    =
    =
    copy
    =
    =
    =
    =
    === PRINT ===
    -3 -2 -1 0
    

    And

    === TEST CASE: n = 20
    === FILL ===
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    copy
    === PRINT ===
    0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19
    === SORT ===
    copy
    My swap.
    My swap.
    My swap.
    My swap.
    My swap.
    My swap.
    My swap.
    My swap.
    My swap.
    My swap.
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    copy
    =
    copy
    =
    copy
    =
    copy
    =
    copy
    =
    === PRINT ===
    -19 -18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
    
    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-27 22:15

    For small ranges, std::sort implementations in GCC’s stdlibc++ (and other standard library implementations) recurs to insertion sort for performance reasons (it’s faster than quicksort / introsort on small ranges).

    GCC’s insertion sort implementation in turn doesn’t swap via std::swap – instead, it moves whole ranges of values at a time, instead of swapping individually, thus potentially saving performance. The relevant part is here (bits/stl_algo.h:2187, GCC 4.7.2):

    typename iterator_traits<_RandomAccessIterator>::value_type
      __val = _GLIBCXX_MOVE(*__i);
    _GLIBCXX_MOVE_BACKWARD3(__first, __i, __i + 1);
    *__first = _GLIBCXX_MOVE(__val);
    

    _GLIBCXX_MOVE is the same as std::move from C++11 and _GLIBCXX_MOVE_BACKWARD3 is std::move_backward – however, this is only the case if __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ is defined; if not, then these operations resort to copying instead of moving!

    What this does is move the value at the current position (__i) to a temporary storage, then move all previous values from __first to __i one up, and then re-insert the temporary value at __first. So this performs n swaps in one operation instead having to move n values to a temporary location:

      first           i
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+
    | b | c | d | e | a | f |
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+
                      |
      <---------------+
    
    
      first           i
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+
    | --> b-> c-> d-> e-> f |
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+
    
    
      first           i
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+
    | a | b | c | d | e | f |
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+
      ^
    
    0 讨论(0)
提交回复
热议问题