I am using std::queue for implementing JobQueue class. ( Basically this class process each job in FIFO manner). In one scenario, I want to clear the queue in one shot( delet
A common idiom for clearing standard containers is swapping with an empty version of the container:
void clear( std::queue<int> &q )
{
std::queue<int> empty;
std::swap( q, empty );
}
It is also the only way of actually clearing the memory held inside some containers (std::vector)
I'd rather not rely on swap()
or setting the queue to a newly created queue object, because the queue elements are not properly destroyed. Calling pop()
invokes the destructor for the respective element object. This might not be an issue in <int>
queues but might very well have side effects on queues containing objects.
Therefore a loop with while(!queue.empty()) queue.pop();
seems unfortunately to be the most efficient solution at least for queues containing objects if you want to prevent possible side effects.
Another option is to use a simple hack to get the underlying container std::queue::c
and call clear
on it. This member must be present in std::queue
as per the standard, but is unfortunately protected
. The hack here was taken from this answer.
#include <queue>
template<class ADAPTER>
typename ADAPTER::container_type& get_container(ADAPTER& a)
{
struct hack : ADAPTER
{
static typename ADAPTER::container_type& get(ADAPTER& a)
{
return a .* &hack::c;
}
};
return hack::get(a);
}
template<typename T, typename C>
void clear(std::queue<T,C>& q)
{
get_container(q).clear();
}
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::queue<int> q;
q.push(3);
q.push(5);
std::cout << q.size() << '\n';
clear(q);
std::cout << q.size() << '\n';
}
You could create a class that inherits from queue and clear the underlying container directly. This is very efficient.
template<class T>
class queue_clearable : public std::queue<T>
{
public:
void clear()
{
c.clear();
}
};
Maybe your a implementation also allows your Queue object (here JobQueue
) to inherit std::queue<Job>
instead of having the queue as a member variable. This way you would have direct access to c.clear()
in your member functions.
Using a unique_ptr
might be OK.
You then reset it to obtain an empty queue and release the memory of the first queue.
As to the complexity? I'm not sure - but guess it's O(1).
Possible code:
typedef queue<int> quint;
unique_ptr<quint> p(new quint);
// ...
p.reset(new quint); // the old queue has been destroyed and you start afresh with an empty queue