Monday 30 January 2017

c++ - Are the days of passing const std::string & as a parameter over?



I heard a recent talk by Herb Sutter who suggested that the reasons to pass std::vector and std::string by const & are largely gone. He suggested that writing a function such as the following is now preferable:



std::string do_something ( std::string inval )
{
std::string return_val;
// ... do stuff ...
return return_val;
}


I understand that the return_val will be an rvalue at the point the function returns and can therefore be returned using move semantics, which are very cheap. However, inval is still much larger than the size of a reference (which is usually implemented as a pointer). This is because a std::string has various components including a pointer into the heap and a member char[] for short string optimization. So it seems to me that passing by reference is still a good idea.



Can anyone explain why Herb might have said this?


Answer



The reason Herb said what he said is because of cases like this.



Let's say I have function A which calls function B, which calls function C. And A passes a string through B and into C. A does not know or care about C; all A knows about is B. That is, C is an implementation detail of B.



Let's say that A is defined as follows:



void A()
{
B("value");
}


If B and C take the string by const&, then it looks something like this:



void B(const std::string &str)
{
C(str);
}

void C(const std::string &str)
{
//Do something with `str`. Does not store it.
}


All well and good. You're just passing pointers around, no copying, no moving, everyone's happy. C takes a const& because it doesn't store the string. It simply uses it.



Now, I want to make one simple change: C needs to store the string somewhere.



void C(const std::string &str)
{
//Do something with `str`.
m_str = str;
}


Hello, copy constructor and potential memory allocation (ignore the Short String Optimization (SSO)). C++11's move semantics are supposed to make it possible to remove needless copy-constructing, right? And A passes a temporary; there's no reason why C should have to copy the data. It should just abscond with what was given to it.



Except it can't. Because it takes a const&.



If I change C to take its parameter by value, that just causes B to do the copy into that parameter; I gain nothing.



So if I had just passed str by value through all of the functions, relying on std::move to shuffle the data around, we wouldn't have this problem. If someone wants to hold on to it, they can. If they don't, oh well.



Is it more expensive? Yes; moving into a value is more expensive than using references. Is it less expensive than the copy? Not for small strings with SSO. Is it worth doing?



It depends on your use case. How much do you hate memory allocations?


No comments:

Post a Comment

c++ - Does curly brackets matter for empty constructor?

Those brackets declare an empty, inline constructor. In that case, with them, the constructor does exist, it merely does nothing more than t...