Let me just say up front that what I'm aware that what I'm about to propose is a mortal sin, and that I will probably burn in Programming Hell for even considering it.
That said, I'm still interested in knowing if there's any reason why this wouldn't work.
The situation is: I have a reference-counting smart-pointer class that I use everywhere. It currently looks something like this (note: incomplete/simplified psuedocode):
class IRefCountable
{
public:
IRefCountable() : _refCount(0) {}
virtual ~IRefCountable() {}
void Ref() {_refCount++;}
bool Unref() {return (--_refCount==0);}
private:
unsigned int _refCount;
};
class Ref
{
public:
Ref(IRefCountable * ptr, bool isObjectOnHeap) : _ptr(ptr), _isObjectOnHeap(isObjectOnHeap)
{
_ptr->Ref();
}
~Ref()
{
if ((_ptr->Unref())&&(_isObjectOnHeap)) delete _ptr;
}
private:
IRefCountable * _ptr;
bool _isObjectOnHeap;
};
Today I noticed that sizeof(Ref)=16. However, if I remove the boolean member variable _isObjectOnHeap, sizeof(Ref) is reduced to 8. That means that for every Ref in my program, there are 7.875 wasted bytes of RAM... and there are many, many Refs in my program.
Well, that seems like a waste of some RAM. But I really need that extra bit of information (okay, humor me and assume for the sake of the discussion that I really do). And I notice that since IRefCountable is a non-POD class, it will (presumably) always be allocated on a word-aligned memory address. Therefore, the least significant bit of (_ptr) should always be zero.
Which makes me wonder... is there any reason why I can't OR my one bit of boolean data into the least-significant bit of the pointer, and thus reduce sizeof(Ref) by half without sacrificing any functionality? I'd have to be careful to AND out that bit before dereferencing the pointer, of course, which would make pointer dereferences less efficient, but that might be made up for by the fact that the Refs are now smaller, and thus more of them can fit into the processor's cache at once, and so on.
Is this a reasonable thing to do? Or am I setting myself up for a world of hurt? And if the latter, how exactly would that hurt be visited upon me? (Note that this is code that needs to run correctly in all reasonably modern desktop environments, but it doesn't need to run in embedded machines or supercomputers or anything exotic like that)
Any reason? Unless things have changed in the standard lately, the value representation of a pointer is implementation-defined. It is certainly possible that some implementation somewhere may pull the same trick, defining these otherwise-unused low bits for its own purposes. It's even more possible that some implementation might use word-pointers rather than byte-pointers, so instead of two adjacent words being at "addresses" 0x8640 and 0x8642, they would be at "addresses" 0x4320 and 0x4321.
One tricky way around the problem would be to make Ref a (de facto) abstract class, and all instances would actually be instances of RefOnHeap and RefNotOnHeap. If there are that many Refs around, the extra space used to store the code and metadata for three classes rather than one would be made up by the space savings in having each Ref being half the size. (Won't work too well, the compiler can omit the vtable pointer if there are no virtual methods and introducing virtual methods will add the 4-or-8 bytes back to the class).
The problem here is that it is entirely machine-dependent. It isn't something one often sees in C or C++ code, but it has certainly been done many times in assembly. Old Lisp interpreters almost always used this trick to store type information in the low bit(s). (I have seen int in C code, but in projects that were being implemented for a specific target platform.)
Personally, if I were trying to write portable code, I probably wouldn't do this. The fact is that it will almost certainly work on "all reasonably modern desktop environments". (Certainly, it will work on every one I can think of.)
A lot depends on the nature of your code. If you are maintaining it, and nobody else will ever have to deal with the "world of hurt", then it might be ok. You will have to add ifdef's for any odd architecture that you might need to support later on. On the other hand, if you are releasing it to the world as "portable" code, that would be cause for concern.
Another way to handle this is to write two versions of your smart pointer, one for machines on which this will work and one for machines where it won't. That way, as long as you maintain both versions, it won't be that big a deal to change a config file to use the 16-byte version.
It goes without saying that you would have to avoid writing any other code that assumes sizeof(Ref) is 8 rather than 16. If you are using unit tests, run them with both versions.
If you want to use only the standard facilities and not rely on any implementation then with C++0x there are ways to express alignment (here is a recent question I answered). There's also std::uintptr_t to reliably get an unsigned integral type large enough to hold a pointer. Now the one thing guaranteed is that a conversion from the pointer type to std::[u]intptr_t and back to that same type yields the original pointer.
I suppose you could argue that if you can get back the original std::intptr_t (with masking), then you can get the original pointer. I don't know how solid this reasoning would be.
[edit: thinking about it there's no guarantee that an aligned pointer takes any particular form when converted to an integral type, e.g. one with some bits unset. probably too much of a stretch here]
There will be always a sense of uncertainty in mind even if this method is working, because ultimately you are playing with the internal architecture which may or may not be portable.
On the other hand to solve this problem, if you want to avoid bool variable, I would suggest a simple constructor as,
Ref(IRefCountable * ptr) : _ptr(ptr)
{
if(ptr != 0)
_ptr->Ref();
}
From the code, I smell that the reference counting is needed only when the object is on heap. For automatic objects, you can simply pass 0 to the class Ref and put appropriate null checks in constructor/destructor.
Have you thought about an out of class storage ?
Depending on whether you have (or not) to worry about multi-threading and control the implementation of new/delete/malloc/free, it might be worth a try.
The point would be that instead of incrementing a local counter (local to the object), you would maintain a "counter" map address --> count that would haughtily ignore addresses passed that are outside the allocated area (stack for example).
It may seem silly (there is room for contention in MT), but it also plays rather nice with read-only since the object is not "modified" only for counting.
Of course, I have no idea of the performance you might hope to achieve with this :p
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6326534/can-storing-unrelated-data-in-the-least-significant-bit-of-a-pointer-work-reliab