I want to create a json object in cocos2d-x 3.4 with rapidjson and convert it to a string:
rapidjson::Document doc;
doc.SetObject();
doc.AddMember("key1",1,doc.GetAllocator());
doc["key2"]=2;
rapidjson::StringBuffer sb;
rapidjson::Writer<rapidjson::StringBuffer> writer(sb);
doc.Accept(writer);
CCLOG("%s",sb.GetString());
but the output is {"key1":1} not {"key1":1,"key2":2}, why?
In old (0.1x) versions of RapidJSON, doc["key2"] returns a Value singleton representing Null. doc["key2"] = 2 actually writes to that singleton.
In newer versions of RapidJSON (v1.0.x), this behavior has been changed. It basically make assertion fail for a key that is not found in a JSON object, in order to solve exact problem you mentioned.
As a reminder, when an operation potentially requires allocating memory (such as AddMember or PushBack, an Allocator object must be appeared. Since operator[] normally only has one parameter, it cannot add new members as in STL. This is quite weird and not very user-friendly, but this is a tradeoff in RapidJSON's design for performance and memory overheads.
Related
The Apple doc says that
If a property marked with the lazy modifier is accessed by multiple
threads simultaneously and the property has not yet been initialized,
there is no guarantee that the property will be initialized only once.
My question is what are the potential repercussions of a property getting initialized more than once?
And in case of a property getting initialized more than once, which one of it will be used? How Swift manages them?
I went through some of the answers.
Is it normal that lazy var property is initialized twice?
But they are just saying that lazy properties can get initialized more than once. I want to know what are the repercussions of this.
Thanks in advance.
(See my comment to rmaddy's answer regarding my concern about thread-safety on writing the pointer itself. My gut is that memory corruption is not possible, but that object duplication is. But I can't prove so far from the documentation that memory corruption isn't possible.)
Object duplication is a major concern IMO if the lazy var has reference semantics. Two racing threads can get different instances:
Thread 1 begins to initialize (object A)
Thread 2 begins to initialize (object B)
Thread 1 assigns A to var and returns A to caller
Thread 2 assigns B to var and returns B to caller
This means that thread 1 and thread 2 have different instances. That definitely could be a problem if they are expecting to have the same instance. If the type has value semantics, then this shouldn't matter (that being the point of value semantics). But if it has reference semantics, then this very likely be a problem.
IMO, lazy should always be avoided if multi-threaded callers are possible. It throws uncertainty into what thread the object construction will occur on, and the last thing you want in a thread-safe object is uncertainty about what thread code will run on.
Personally I've rarely seen good use cases for lazy except for where you need to pass self in the initializer of one of your own properties. (Even then, I typically use ! types rather than lazy.) In this way, lazy is really just a kludgy work-around a Swift init headache that I wish we could solve another way, and do away with lazy, which IMO has the same "doesn't quite deliver what it promises, and so you probably have to write your own version anyway" problem as #atomic in ObjC.
The concept of "lazy initialization" is only useful if the type in question is both very expensive to construct, and unlikely to ever be used. If the variable is actually used at some point, it's slower and has less deterministic performance to make it lazy, plus it forces you to make it var when it is most often readonly.
The answer completely depends on the code you have inside the implementation of the lazy property. The biggest problem would arise from any side effects you've put in the code since they might be called more than once.
If all you do is create a self-contained object, initialize it, and return it, then there won't be any issues.
But if also do things like add a view, update an array or other data structure, or modify other properties, then you have an issue if the lazy variable is created more than once since all of those side effects will happen more than once. You end up adding two views or adding two objects to the array, etc.
Ensure that the code in your lazy property only creates and initializes an object and does not perform any other operations. If you do that, then your code won't cause any issues if the lazy property gets created multiple times from multiple threads.
Ok I've created some class which inherits from UObject. I can created it in level BP (using Construct object node) and store reference in my BP variable. When I'm creating object I'm setting Outer as self. So level BP owning newly created object. Now my question is how to delete this object from memory? I tried to set BP variable to null but it seems that I need to destroy level to release this object. Any idea how to do it without destorying level?
I have no access to UE4 at this moment but I hope this can help/hint you to a right direction:
UObjects are managed by the garbage collector. To create a UObject appropriately, use NewObject(), NewNamedObject() and ConstructObject(). It is possible to configure the way UObjects will be handled by garbage collector at the time of creation with Object Flags enumeration. (If you like to learn more about UObject Instance Creation, you can go here: hhttps://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Programming/UnrealArchitecture/Objects/Creation/index.html )
This way, you should not call new or delete on UObjects. If UObject is no longer needed, it usually means that there are no references to it (this may, however differ, depending on the context and garbage collection flags used at the moment of UObject creation). In this situation, you can run ForceGarbageCollection() function:
GetWorld()->ForceGarbageCollection(true);
Please note, that calling this method may cause crashes in some situations, particularly when object is already being destroyed by garbage collector or has a value of null.
Also, if you like to learn more about Unreal Object Handling, you can go here: hhttps://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Programming/UnrealArchitecture/Objects/Optimizations/index.html
Credit : https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/219430/explicitely-delete-a-uobject.html
Ps. StackOverflow doesn't allow me to post more than two links because I don't have enough reputation ... so remove the first 'h' from my broken links, it'll work.
I managed to resolve this, I also got some clues given on unreal answer hub: https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/337525/how-to-delete-object-using-blueprints.html
So basically answer is: set reference variable to null, and at some moment GC will release it. But don't expect to have this instantly.
I have 2 pieces of code :
It works normal
with ADOTemp do
begin
SQL.Clear;
SQL.Add('INSERT INTO documents');
SQL.Add('(document_date,fk_id_status,money_direction,');
SQL.Add('paid,addition,saving,fk_id_base,fk_id_user)');
SQL.Add('VALUES ');
SQL.Add('(CONVERT(DATE,GETDATE(),103),:pfk_id_status,:pmoney_direction,');
SQL.Add('0,0,0,'+IntToStr(p_id_base)+',:pfk_id_user)');
Parameters.ParamByName('pfk_id_status').Value := p_id_status;
Parameters.ParamByName('pmoney_direction').Value := p_money_direction;
// Parameters.ParamByName('p').Value := p_id_base;
Parameters.ParamByName('pfk_id_user').Value := fMain.ApplicationVariablers.user_id;
ExecSQL;
end;
It does not work and returns a terrible error
with ADOTemp do
begin
SQL.Clear;
SQL.Add('INSERT INTO documents');
SQL.Add('(document_date,fk_id_status,money_direction,');
SQL.Add('paid,addition,saving,fk_id_base,fk_id_user)');
SQL.Add('VALUES ');
SQL.Add('(CONVERT(DATE,GETDATE(),103),:pfk_id_status,:pmoney_direction,');
SQL.Add('0,0,0,:p,:pfk_id_user)');
Parameters.ParamByName('pfk_id_status').Value := p_id_status;
Parameters.ParamByName('pmoney_direction').Value := p_money_direction;
Parameters.ParamByName('p').Value := p_id_base;
Parameters.ParamByName('pfk_id_user').Value := fMain.ApplicationVariablers.user_id;
ExecSQL;
end;
Error on image, line 1917
It seems that this question is in reference to your earlier question: Delphi, error :"Access violation at address xxxxxxxx. Read of address yyyyyyyy", at AdoQuery.SQL.Text:='''
You had added and accepted an answer there along the lines seen in this question. The error message, an AV in msvcrt.dll is indicative of a serious programming error. Perhaps a heap corruption. Perhaps something else. The change you made that stops the error occurring does not really fix the problem. The problem will still be there, lying dormant. You just got (un)lucky that the change you made appeared to fix the problem.
Access violations are not always reproducible. That's just their nature. When you encounter one you need to understand why it happens. Simply using trial and error to re-organise code from a completely different location will never lead to the real solution.
What you should be doing is tracking down the real cause of the problem. Do that, fix it, and either version of the code above will work. This is probably not the answer you are wanting to get. You may very well not want to accept what I say. But, speaking from experience, until you recognise that you have a more serious problem, you will make no headway here.
Looking at your code in the bitmap...I'm pretty sure you access violation is because of what David just said...you have serious Memory problems in your code...Your not freeing your objects...that you are creating...Anytime you pass a nil reference to Owner in a TComponent Constructor...your telling the compiler...that you know what your doing and will free it when your finished with it...Matter of fact good practice is to always free objects that you declare and use exclusively in the scope of your method.
procedure TForm1.MyMethod;
var
a_MyComp: TMyComp;
begin
a_MyComp := TMyComp.Create(nil);
Try
//use my a_MyComp...
Finally
a_MyComp.Free;
End;
end;
Check out your code in CreateNewDocument...you'll notice that your not freeing your AdoTemp.
-Rick
Access violation exceptions (AVs) tell you that you have made a mistake in the memory access of your program. However, the way access violations work: they are unable to guarantee always detecting the error every time you make a mistake. (Sometimes you get un-lucky and no access violations are raised, but the mistake is still there causing other things to quietly go wrong inside your application.)
You can think of the memory available to your program being represented as below (where "." means the memory is not allocated to anything, and "A" means the memory is allocated to something within your program: e.g. object, local variable, parameter, machine code).
[.......AAA..AAAA.....AA......A...A...........AAA....A.......AA.........AAAAA]
Suppose you create some object; this will require memory to be allocated for the object itself. If the object in turn creates child objects, this will also be allocated in memory. (I'll use "O" and "C")
/-ref--\
[.......AAA..AAAAO....AAC.....A...A.....C.....AAA....A.......AA.........AAAAA]
\-ref------------------/
Note that within the memory allocated to O, it might hold references to its child objects.
Conversely to the above, whenever an object is destroyed, its memory is deallocated. Let us suppose you have made a mistake in your memory access, and something has destroyed one of O's child objects before O has finished using it.
/-ref--\
[.......AAA..AAAAO....AAC.....A...A...........AAA....A.......AA.........AAAAA]
\-ref------------------/
If O now tries to use its second child object, you will get an access violation. However, you might be un-lucky and not get an access violation showing your earlier mistake IF:
You destroy O without it trying to do anything to the second child object.
Or you first create a new object that happens to be allocated in the exact same place the child object was.
The second situation tends to be worse than the first, because every time C2 is used on the assumption that it is the correct child of O: unexpected results are produced and an incorrect values are written in memory. These incorrect values may be important data, or references to other objects (making the problem get worse over time).
So: Whenever yo do get an access violation, thank your lucky stars and hunt down the root cause of the problem.
NB! NB! I cannot stress the importance of the above enough.
Investigating your particular problem
First note, when an exception pauses in the debugger, the code usually points to the next line that would have been executed if not for the exception. (This doesn't affect anything here, because the previous line is also ADOTemp.SQL.Add; - the point is be prepared to consider the previous line as the cause of an exception - and test to confirm it!)
Useful tip: When an exception is thrown within Delphi/Third Party code, it can be useful to build with Debug DCU's or recompile Third Party source with debug information to get closer to the actual line raising the exception. (This can even be useful in situations like this where the error appears to be inside a Microsoft DLL.)
Looking at your screen-shot, the exception is thrown from a brand new instance of TADOQuery. Now there really isn't any sensible explanation for a brand new query to be throwing access violations when simply adding text to its SQL query. This strongly implies a corruption problem as described earlier.
One possibility would be another thread interfering with this one. (NOTE: even if your application isn't multi-threaded, the ADO objects do have built-in support for asynchronous operations.) However, I'm going to ignore that possibility for now because threading issues tend to be less consistent than you've implied this one is.
So, assuming you have a memory access problem somewhere else that is only manifesting here with a brand new TADOQuery (used correctly at least up to the point of the AV) - what other objects are interacting with this query to possibly cause corruption?
ADOTemp.Connection := fMain.ADOConnection;
There is a very strong possibility that commenting out the above line would also eliminate your access violation. So what are the possible problems:
fMain might have been destroyed prematurely and is now a dangling pointer meaning the code to return ADOConnection could do any of a number of unexpected things.
Any of the code backing fMain.ADOConnection may be referencing corrupted memory or dangling pointers; this includes the returned connection itself.
NOTE: One very common cause of invalid memory access is to have a function such as GetADOConnection that does not correctly initialise its Result. So in some cases it returns a 'random' address in memory, resulting in all sorts of unexpected behaviour when something tries to use the connection.
Is your ADOConnection created on a different thread, and being used by multiple threads?
PS: Don't forget to follow Rick's advice, and make sure you destroy the query when you've finished using it. Who knows, there might be an internal bug in ADO that when it runs out of a particular internal resource (due to queries not being destroyed), that causes ADO to start throwing AVs.
NOTE: You should be able to test my theory without altering functionality by simply changing the ADOTemp.Connection := ... line. Simply assign a connection string to the query instead of a connection object. However, if that solves (or more correctly stated: hides) the problem, please follow my advice, and hunt down the root cause of the AV.
For example, if I implement some simple object caching, which method is faster?
1. return isset($cache[$cls]) ? $cache[$cls] : $cache[$cls] = new $cls;
2. return #$cache[$cls] ?: $cache[$cls] = new $cls;
I read somewhere # takes significant time to execute (and I wonder why), especially when warnings/notices are actually being issued and suppressed. isset() on the other hand means an extra hash lookup. So which is better and why?
I do want to keep E_NOTICE on globally, both on dev and production servers.
I wouldn't worry about which method is FASTER. That is a micro-optimization. I would worry more about which is more readable code and better coding practice.
I would certainly prefer your first option over the second, as your intent is much clearer. Also, best to keep away edge condition problems by always explicitly testing variables to make sure you are getting what you are expecting to get. For example, what if the class stored in $cache[$cls] is not of type $cls?
Personally, if I typically would not expect the index on $cache to be unset, then I would also put error handling in there rather than using ternary operations. If I could reasonably expect that that index would be unset on a regular basis, then I would make class $cls behave as a singleton and have your code be something like
return $cls::get_instance();
The isset() approach is better. It is code that explicitly states the index may be undefined. Suppressing the error is sloppy coding.
According to this article 10 Performance Tips to Speed Up PHP, warnings take additional execution time and also claims the # operator is "expensive."
Cleaning up warnings and errors beforehand can also keep you from
using # error suppression, which is expensive.
Additionally, the # will not suppress the errors with respect to custom error handlers:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.operators.errorcontrol.php
If you have set a custom error handler function with
set_error_handler() then it will still get called, but this custom
error handler can (and should) call error_reporting() which will
return 0 when the call that triggered the error was preceded by an #.
If the track_errors feature is enabled, any error message generated by
the expression will be saved in the variable $php_errormsg. This
variable will be overwritten on each error, so check early if you want
to use it.
# temporarily changes the error_reporting state, that's why it is said to take time.
If you expect a certain value, the first thing to do to validate it, is to check that it is defined. If you have notices, it's probably because you're missing something. Using isset() is, in my opinion, a good practice.
I ran timing tests for both cases, using hash keys of various lengths, also using various hit/miss ratios for the hash table, plus with and without E_NOTICE.
The results were: with error_reporting(E_ALL) the isset() variant was faster than the # by some 20-30%. Platform used: command line PHP 5.4.7 on OS X 10.8.
However, with error_reporting(E_ALL & ~E_NOTICE) the difference was within 1-2% for short hash keys, and up 10% for longer ones (16 chars).
Note that the first variant executes 2 hash table lookups, whereas the variant with # does only one lookup.
Thus, # is inferior in all scenarios and I wonder if there are any plans to optimize it.
I think you have your priorities a little mixed up here.
First of all, if you want to get a real world test of which is faster - load test them. As stated though suppressing will probably be slower.
The problem here is if you have performance issues with regular code, you should be upgrading your hardware, or optimize the grand logic of your code rather than preventing proper execution and error checking.
Suppressing errors to steal the tiniest fraction of a speed gain won't do you any favours in the long run. Especially if you think that this error may keep happening time and time again, and cause your app to run more slowly than if the error was caught and fixed.
I am trying to determine if an object is valid. The program has (at least) two threads and one of the threads might invalidate the object by removing it from an NSMutableArray. I need the other thread to check either its existence or validity before acting on it.
You can't. The only way to check if the memory your object pointer has still represents a valid object is to dereference it, but dereferencing an "invalid" object (by which I assume you mean one that has been dealloced) will result in either accessing the memory of a new object that has been allocated in the same location, garbage data that may or may not be identical to a normal object, or an unmapped memory page that will result in an immediate EXEC_BAD_ACCESS.
Any time you are holding a reference to an object you might use in the future you must retain it. If you don't you have not shown any interest or ownership in the object and the system may throw it away at any time.
Using objective C accessors and properties instead of directly setting ivars and using retain/release simplifies doing the right thing quite a bit.
Multi-threaded programming is hard. Hard does not begin to capture how difficult it is. This is the kind of hard in which a general, useable, 'reasonably qualified' way of deterministically adding two different numbers together that are being mutated and shared by multiple threads in bounded time without the use of any special assistance from the CPU in the form of atomic instructions would be a major breakthrough and the thesis of your PhD. A deity of your choice would publicly thank you for your contribution to humanity. Just for adding two numbers together. Actually, multi-threaded programming is even harder than that.
Take a look at: Technical Note TN2059
Using collection classes safely with multithreaded applications. It covers this topic in general, and outlines some of the non-obvious pitfalls that await you.
You say
I need the other thread to check either its existence or validity before acting on it.
The easiest way is to hold on to the index of the object in the NSMutableArray and then do the following
if( myObject == [myArray objectAtIndex: myObjectIndex] ) {
// everything is good !
}
else {
// my object is not what I think it is anymore
}
There are clear problem with this approach however
insertion, and deletion will stuff you up
The approach is not thread safe since the array can be changed while you are reading it
I really recomend using a different way to share this array between the two threads. Does it have to be mutable? If it doesn't then make it immutable and then you no longer have to worry about the threading issues.
If it does, then you really have to reconsider your approach. Hopefully someone can give an cocoa way of doing this in a thread safe way as I don't have the experience.