Smart pointers in TextBuffer #2

aminya · 2020-12-31T05:42:23Z

The benchmarks are great.

There is a crash, but Nan disables exepctions. We need to add the debug build.

constexpr variable is guaranteed to have a value available at compile time. whereas static const members or const variable could either mean a compile time value or a runtime value.

The codebase uses variables that are called `_edit`, `_ses`, etc. We should fix these later

This replaces the deprecated c headers with their <c*> versions

constructors must be marked explicit to avoid unintentional implicit conversions

single-argument constructors must be marked explicit to avoid unintentional implicit conversions [google-explicit-constructor,hicpp-explicit-conversions]

constructors must be marked explicit to avoid unintentional implicit conversions [google-explicit-constructor,hicpp-explicit-conversions]

Fixes implicit conversion 'int' -> bool

To prevent implicit conversion 'int/uint' -> bool

Prevents implicit conversion of the object to bool

Later we can find the unique ones

aminya · 2021-01-08T06:17:50Z

src/core/text-buffer.cc

+Patch TextBuffer::get_inverted_changes(const shared_ptr<Snapshot> snapshot) const {
+  vector<const Patch*> patches;
+  auto layer = top_layer;
+  while (layer.get() !=  &snapshot->base_layer) {


Not sure about this (get)

~~iIf base_layer is a layer, and not a pointer, then I believe this is correct. The left side is the address being pointed to, and the right side would be the address of the base layer.~~

~~Although &(snapshot->base_layer) would probably be more friendly to people not intimately familiar with C++ order of operations~~

Might want to use naming like layer_ptr = top_layer_ptr; To clarify which ones are layers, which are pointers, and which (if any) are double pointers (layer_ptr_ptr). This would make comparisons a whole lot more obvious.

Well, seeing now that base layer is a shared pointer, I think the comparison should be against snapshot->base_layer.get()

Looks like, for comparison only, the gets aren't needed. But I'd recommend keeping them to be explicit that the shared pointers themselves are not being compared.

aminya · 2021-01-08T06:18:49Z

src/core/text-buffer.cc

@@ -671,18 +676,17 @@ struct TextBuffer::Layer {
 };

 TextBuffer::TextBuffer(u16string &&text) :
-  base_layer{new Layer(move(text))},
+  base_layer{make_shared<Layer>(Layer(move(text)))},


Not sure if calling Layer() explicitly is required (instead of just writing make_shared).

I think It shouldn't make a difference... unless the layer constructor needs to be called twice for some reason

aminya · 2021-01-08T06:19:30Z

src/core/patch.cc

+Patch &Patch::operator=(Patch &other) {
+  std::swap(root, other.root);
+  std::swap(left_ancestor_stack, other.left_ancestor_stack);
+  std::swap(node_stack, other.node_stack);
+  std::swap(change_count, other.change_count);
+  merges_adjacent_changes = other.merges_adjacent_changes;
+  return *this;
+}


Basically copy-pasted the move assignment operator. 😄

Shouldn't assignment be non-destructive though? (Shouldn't other be const)

aminya · 2021-01-08T06:19:53Z

src/core/patch.cc

+Patch::Patch(Patch &other)
+    : root{nullptr}, change_count{other.change_count}, merges_adjacent_changes{other.merges_adjacent_changes} {
+  *this = other;
+}


😄 copy-pasted the move constructor

aminya · 2021-01-08T06:20:02Z

src/core/patch.h

@@ -36,7 +36,9 @@ class Patch {
  };

  // Construction and destruction
+  Patch(Patch &);


aminya · 2021-01-08T06:20:09Z

src/core/patch.h

  Patch(Patch &&);
+  Patch &Patch::operator=(Patch &other);


aminya · 2021-01-08T06:37:29Z

@jeff-hykin It might be good to have someone else's eye on the code 😄

jeff-hykin · 2021-01-08T12:03:14Z

Yeah 😬 I was hoping over break I'd have time but that didn't work out and this next semester is going to be more busy than the last.

jeff-hykin · 2021-01-21T16:06:04Z

src/bindings/text-buffer-wrapper.cc

@@ -1090,11 +1083,9 @@ class SaveWorker : public Nan::AsyncWorker {

  Local<Value> Finish() {
    if (error) {
-      delete snapshot;
      return error_to_js(*error, encoding_name, file_name);


Is it fine not setting the snapshot to nullptr in these cases?

jeff-hykin · 2021-01-21T16:12:48Z

src/core/patch.cc

+Patch &Patch::operator=(Patch &other) {
+  std::swap(root, other.root);
+  std::swap(left_ancestor_stack, other.left_ancestor_stack);
+  std::swap(node_stack, other.node_stack);
+  std::swap(change_count, other.change_count);
+  merges_adjacent_changes = other.merges_adjacent_changes;
+  return *this;
+}


Shouldn't assignment be non-destructive though? (Shouldn't other be const)

jeff-hykin · 2021-01-21T16:28:34Z

src/core/text-buffer.cc

+Patch TextBuffer::get_inverted_changes(const shared_ptr<Snapshot> snapshot) const {
+  vector<const Patch*> patches;
+  auto layer = top_layer;
+  while (layer.get() !=  &snapshot->base_layer) {


~~iIf base_layer is a layer, and not a pointer, then I believe this is correct. The left side is the address being pointed to, and the right side would be the address of the base layer.~~

~~Although &(snapshot->base_layer) would probably be more friendly to people not intimately familiar with C++ order of operations~~

Might want to use naming like layer_ptr = top_layer_ptr; To clarify which ones are layers, which are pointers, and which (if any) are double pointers (layer_ptr_ptr). This would make comparisons a whole lot more obvious.

jeff-hykin · 2021-01-21T16:47:31Z

src/core/text-buffer.cc

@@ -671,18 +676,17 @@ struct TextBuffer::Layer {
 };

 TextBuffer::TextBuffer(u16string &&text) :
-  base_layer{new Layer(move(text))},
+  base_layer{make_shared<Layer>(Layer(move(text)))},


I think It shouldn't make a difference... unless the layer constructor needs to be called twice for some reason

jeff-hykin · 2021-01-21T16:55:24Z

src/core/text-buffer.cc

+Patch TextBuffer::get_inverted_changes(const shared_ptr<Snapshot> snapshot) const {
+  vector<const Patch*> patches;
+  auto layer = top_layer;
+  while (layer.get() !=  &snapshot->base_layer) {


Well, seeing now that base layer is a shared pointer, I think the comparison should be against snapshot->base_layer.get()

jeff-hykin · 2021-01-21T17:00:08Z

src/core/text-buffer.cc

+Patch TextBuffer::get_inverted_changes(const shared_ptr<Snapshot> snapshot) const {
+  vector<const Patch*> patches;
+  auto layer = top_layer;
+  while (layer.get() !=  &snapshot->base_layer) {


Looks like, for comparison only, the gets aren't needed. But I'd recommend keeping them to be explicit that the shared pointers themselves are not being compared.

jeff-hykin · 2021-01-21T17:02:56Z

src/core/text-buffer.cc

@@ -784,7 +787,7 @@ void TextBuffer::serialize_changes(Serializer &serializer) {

 bool TextBuffer::deserialize_changes(Deserializer &deserializer) {
  if (top_layer != base_layer || (base_layer->previous_layer != nullptr)) return false;


Looks like C++2020 is going to be removing the != operator for shared pointers.
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/shared_ptr/operator_cmp
So might want to consider converting all the comparisons for compatibility with 2020

aminya · 2021-01-22T11:44:56Z

@jeff-hykin Thanks for the comments! I will go through them

aminya added 30 commits December 2, 2020 20:06

Add clang-tidy

d1b3f03

Add clang-format script

c445df8

Add standard variable + use c++14

ef7a5ba

Add MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET variable

a8296f1

Add Release configurations and optimizations

d3f3d40

Use C++17 standard

490e785

Use Visual Studio 17 on AppVeyor

18aac65

Merge branch 'Release-optimizations'

eff9d3d

use native optional

ea704b2

Merge branch 'native-optional'

7a73403

use constexpr instead of static const

c787367

constexpr variable is guaranteed to have a value available at compile time. whereas static const members or const variable could either mean a compile time value or a runtime value.

Merge branch 'constexpr'

0603004

Exclude reserved identifiers from clang-tidy

09d34bd

The codebase uses variables that are called `_edit`, `_ses`, etc. We should fix these later

Merge branch 'clang-tidy'

3660a91

remove optional.h and include optional directly

c553008

modernize-deprecated-headers

9229018

This replaces the deprecated c headers with their <c*> versions

use angle brackets for external headers

d4479ec

Make constructors explicit

0b9f4c5

constructors must be marked explicit to avoid unintentional implicit conversions

Make single-argument constructors explicit

c7cee01

single-argument constructors must be marked explicit to avoid unintentional implicit conversions [google-explicit-constructor,hicpp-explicit-conversions]

Make multo-argument constructors explicit

26364d6

constructors must be marked explicit to avoid unintentional implicit conversions [google-explicit-constructor,hicpp-explicit-conversions]

Merge branch 'explicit-constructors'

e9ce958

Make most of the constructors explicit

851b65c

Add TODO for making TextSlice explicit

f98a830

Add TODO for making Text explicit

5e64ae4

Merge branch 'explicit-constructors'

ee74336

Use Clang 10 on Travis

d73adf7

Merge branch 'Release-optimizations'

2529ee2

explicit comparison for ferror to prevent conversion

d50be88

Fixes implicit conversion 'int' -> bool

explicit comparison for int/uint numbers

349bdd8

To prevent implicit conversion 'int/uint' -> bool

explicit comparison for objects that may be null

d661ac9

Prevents implicit conversion of the object to bool

aminya added 13 commits December 8, 2020 08:25

add large-text benchmark to npm benchmark script

38a7089

use performance from perf_hooks to measure time

f4eb0a5

remove 10b test (Very small to find anything meaningful)

6cbc912

run the tests for different words

79d838c

pretty print the result

9334888

make test runner async + run same size tests together

3ab437d

make test function async

1548676

benchmark buffer.setText

928fa1c

Merge branch 'fix-large-text-benchmark'

190108d

fix text-buffer benchmark

cdd5de2

use performance in text-buffer benchmarks + prettry print

f5792c7

use performance in marker-index benchmarks + pretty print

0e9523a

Merge branch 'fix-large-text-benchmark'

13ef1e3

aminya changed the title ~~Smart pointers~~ Smart pointers in TextBuffer Dec 31, 2020

aminya added 2 commits January 7, 2021 23:53

First make everything a shared_ptr

92e40de

Later we can find the unique ones

Patch missing methods

0698755

aminya force-pushed the smart-pointers branch from 2503c20 to 0890a2d Compare January 8, 2021 06:05

text-buffer-wrapper

f18a33b

aminya force-pushed the smart-pointers branch from 0890a2d to f18a33b Compare January 8, 2021 06:14

aminya commented Jan 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/core/patch.h

@@ -36,7 +36,9 @@ class Patch {

};

// Construction and destruction

Patch(Patch &);

Copy link

Member Author

aminya Jan 8, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not const

aminya commented Jan 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/core/patch.h

Patch(Patch &&);

Patch &Patch::operator=(Patch &other);

Copy link

Member Author

aminya Jan 8, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not const

jeff-hykin reviewed Jan 21, 2021

View reviewed changes

aminya force-pushed the master branch from 13ef1e3 to 9be829e Compare July 4, 2022 03:34

		@@ -784,7 +787,7 @@ void TextBuffer::serialize_changes(Serializer &serializer) {

		bool TextBuffer::deserialize_changes(Deserializer &deserializer) {
		if (top_layer != base_layer \|\| (base_layer->previous_layer != nullptr)) return false;

Smart pointers in TextBuffer #2

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Smart pointers in TextBuffer #2

Uh oh!

Conversation

aminya commented Dec 31, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aminya Jan 8, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jeff-hykin Jan 21, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aminya Jan 8, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aminya commented Jan 8, 2021

Uh oh!

jeff-hykin commented Jan 8, 2021

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jeff-hykin Jan 21, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aminya commented Jan 22, 2021

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aminya commented Dec 31, 2020 •

edited

Loading

aminya Jan 8, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jeff-hykin Jan 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

aminya Jan 8, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jeff-hykin Jan 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading