Below is a very simple (stripped from most of the template code) fifo buffer for a serial output interface. I decided to write my own because a) I'm trying to learn C++, b) the container adapter queue
doesn't bring with it the "quickly-put-many" facility, enforcing an explicit push()
for every element. I know that many modern compilers in many circumstances may optimize this, but for the sake of a) I wanted to do this myself - feel free to comment on the idea and any style/methodic errors you deem noteworthy.
The question however just deals with the inner loop of the "quickly-put-many" function put()
. Compiled with the std::copy()
variant, everything looks ok, but with my own version of the insertion (-DBUGGY
), the data is partially clobbered.
#include <cstddef>
#include <array>
#include <vector>
#include <atomic>
#include <algorithm>
#include <type_traits>
#include <iterator>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <queue>
#include <chrono>
struct SerialBuffer
{
std::array<char,127> fifo{};
std::atomic<int8_t> hd = 0, tl = 0, vtl = 0;
int8_t space(void) // return free space in queue
{
volatile int8_t tmp = hd - vtl - 1;
if (tmp < 0) { tmp += 127; }
return tmp;
}
int8_t reserve(int8_t n) // move virtual tail at once, reserving a run of bytes at end
{
volatile int8_t new_vtl = vtl;
if (n <= space()) {
if (new_vtl - 127 + n >= 0) { vtl = new_vtl - 127 + n; }
else { vtl = new_vtl + n; }
return new_vtl;
}
return -1;
}
int8_t next(int8_t i) // advance index in queue
{
if (i >= 127 - 1) { return 0; }
return i + 1;
}
void confirm(void) // confirm the formerly reserved bytes as present in queue
{
tl = static_cast<int8_t>(vtl);
}
int8_t headroom(int8_t i) // return number bytes from queue index to queue end
{
return 127 - i;
}
template<typename iter_t>
bool put(iter_t it, int8_t n) // (source, number of bytes)
{
int8_t i = reserve(n);
if (i >= 0) {
int8_t j = std::min(n, headroom(i)); // maybe two consecutive insert-ranges: first from i to buffer end, rest from buffer start
#ifdef BUGGY
for (; i < 127; i++) {
fifo[i] = *it++;
}
for (i = 0; i < n-j; i++) {
fifo[i] = *it++;
}
#else
std::copy(it, it+j, fifo.begin()+i);
std::copy(it+j, it+n, fifo.begin());
#endif
confirm();
return true;
}
return false;
}
bool put(std::vector<char> v) { return put(v.cbegin(),v.size()); }
bool put(std::basic_string<char> v) { return put(v.cbegin(),v.size()); }
void dump(int8_t k = 127)
{
if (space() < k) { hd = static_cast<int8_t>(tl); }
else { hd = (hd + k) % 127; }
}
void print(void)
{
std::cout << "Head:" << (0+hd) << " Tail:" << (0+tl) << " VirtTail:" << (0+vtl) << std::endl;
for (int8_t i = hd; i != tl; i = next(i)) { std::cout << fifo[i]; }
std::cout << std::endl;
}
};
int main(void)
{
using namespace std::string_literals;
SerialBuffer fifo1;
auto tmp{"/uwb/x1/raw:123456789"s};
std::vector<char> x(tmp.cbegin(),tmp.cend());
std::queue<char,std::array<char,127>> fifo2;
for (auto _: {1,2,3}) {
for (int i=0; i < 10'000'000; i++) {
if (!fifo1.put(x)) fifo1.dump();
}
fifo1.print();
}
}
Results:
$ g++ bug.cpp --std=c++17 -O3 && ./a.exe
Head:52 Tail:115 VirtTail:115
/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789
Head:104 Tail:103 VirtTail:103
/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789
Head:28 Tail:70 VirtTail:70
/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789
$ g++ bug.cpp --std=c++17 -O3 -DBUGGY && ./a.exe
Head:52 Tail:115 VirtTail:115
/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789
Head:104 Tail:103 VirtTail:103
▒ե▒qс▒▒1▒3▒▒wb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789
Head:28 Tail:70 VirtTail:70
/uwb/x1/raw:123456789/uwb/x1/raw:123456789
As you can see, there are garbled bytes in the second run. I am puzzled where my error in those seemingly harmless for loops is.
EDIT: As @yzt pointed out, this was an embarrasing simple logic error. I wrote a (correct) first for
based version, then changed to std::copy
then, too late in the evening, tried to measure the runtime difference by rewriting the for
loops, this time wrong. Sorry all, this was a derivative of the "don't commit and go home when it doesn't run" error. Correct code:
n -= j;
for (; j > 0; j--,i++) {
fifo[i] = *it++;
}
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fifo[i] = *it++;
}