This is a C++ followup for another question of mine
In the old days of pre-ISO C, the following code would have surprised nobody:
struct Point {
Use an constexpr array of pointer-to-member:
#include <math.h>
struct Point {
double x;
double y;
double z;
};
double dist(struct Point *p1, struct Point *p2) {
constexpr double Point::* coords[3] = {&Point::x, &Point::y, &Point::z};
double d2 = 0;
for (int i=0; i<3; i++) {
double d = p1->*coords[i] - p2->*coords[i];
d2 += d * d;
}
return sqrt(d2);
}
You could use the fact that casting a pointer to intptr_t
doing arithmetic and then casting the value back to the pointer type is implemetation defined behavior. I believe it will work on most of the compilers:
template<class T>
T* increment_pointer(T* a){
return reinterpret_cast<T*>(reinterpret_cast<intptr_t>(a)+sizeof(T));
}
This technic is the most efficient, optimizers seems not to be able to produce optimal if one use table look up: assemblies-comparison
IMHO the easiest way is to just implement operator[]
. You can make a helper array like this or just create a switch...
struct Point
{
double const& operator[] (std::size_t i) const
{
const std::array coords {&x, &y, &z};
return *coords[i];
}
double& operator[] (std::size_t i)
{
const std::array coords {&x, &y, &z};
return *coords[i];
}
double x;
double y;
double z;
};
int main()
{
Point p {1, 2, 3};
std::cout << p[2] - p[1];
return 0;
}
struct Point {
double x;
double y;
double z;
double& operator[]( std::size_t i ) {
auto self = reinterpret_cast<uintptr_t>( this );
auto v = self+i*sizeof(double);
return *reinterpret_cast<double*>(v);
}
double const& operator[]( std::size_t i ) const {
auto self = reinterpret_cast<uintptr_t>( this );
auto v = self+i*sizeof(double);
return *reinterpret_cast<double const*>(v);
}
};
this relies on there being no packing between the double
s in your `struct. Asserting that is difficult.
A POD struct is a sequence of bytes guaranteed.
A compiler should be able to compile []
down to the same instructions (or lack thereof) as a raw array access or pointer arithmetic. There may be some problems where this optimization happens "too late" for other optimzations to occur, so double-check in performance sensitive code.
It is possible that converting to char*
or std::byte*
insted of uintptr_t
would be valid, but there is a core issue about if pointer arithmetic is permitted in this case.