This SO question sparked a discussion about std::generate
and the guarantees made by the standard. In particular, can you use function objects with internal sta
In the discussion of LWG475, std::for_each
is compared with std::transform
. It's noted that "transform
does not guarantee the order in which its function object is called". So, yes, the committee is aware of the lack of sequential guarantees in the standard.
There is no opposite requirement for non-sequential behavior either, so Microsoft and Apache are free to use sequential evaluation.
Anywhere the standard doesn't specify an ordering on an algorithm, you should assume that an implementation can exploit that for parallelism. The paper n3408 discusses options for parallelisation, and points to the Thrust library, which is both a usable parallel-enabled reimplementation of the standard algorithms and a proof-of-concept for future standardisation of parallelism in the algorithms.
Looking at Thrust's implementation of generate
, it calls gen
in a parallel loop whenever the iterator category is random access. As you've observed, this is consistent with the standard, so you should not assume that generate
will always be sequential. (For example, a thread-safe std::rand
can be efficiently used with generate
and does not require sequential invocation.)
The only algorithms that guarantee sequential invocation are those in numeric
; if your code depends on sequential invocation, you should use iota
in place of generate
. Adapting an existing generator:
template<typename F> struct iota_adapter {
F f;
operator typename std::result_of<F()>::type() { return f(); }
void operator++() {}
};
template<typename F> iota_adapter<F> iota_adapt(F &&f) { return {f}; }
Use as:
#include <numeric>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int v[5], i = 0;
std::iota(std::begin(v), std::end(v), iota_adapt([&i]() { return ++i; }));
for (auto i: v) std::cout << i << '\n';
}