Mrthdrb

My program gets a couple of Boolean variables from the user, and their values won't change afterwards. Each Boolean variable enables a part of code. Something like this:

#include <iostream>

void callback_function(bool task_1, bool task_2, bool task_3) 
 if (task_1) 
 std::cout << "Running task 1" << std::endl;
 
 if (task_2) 
 std::cout << "Running task 2" << std::endl;
 
 if (task_3) 
 std::cout << "Running task 3" << std::endl;
 


int main() 
 bool task_1 = true;
 bool task_2 = false;
 bool task_3 = true;

 while (true) 
 callback_function(task_1, task_2, task_3);
 

 return 0;

Now my question is, since the Boolean variables are fixed every time the program calls callback_function(), is there a way to avoid the if statements inside the callback function?

This is one way to avoid the run-time checks (implement a callback function for all permutations of the Boolean variables --- only two cases are shown below):

#include <functional>
#include <iostream>

void callback_function_for_tasks_1_2_3() 
 std::cout << "Running task 1" << std::endl;
 std::cout << "Running task 2" << std::endl;
 std::cout << "Running task 3" << std::endl;


void callback_function_for_tasks_1_3() 
 std::cout << "Running task 1" << std::endl;
 std::cout << "Running task 3" << std::endl;


int main() 
 bool task_1 = true;
 bool task_2 = false;
 bool task_3 = true;

 std::function<void()> callback_function;
 if (task_1 && task_2 && task_3) 
 callback_function = callback_function_for_tasks_1_2_3;
 else if (task_1 && !task_2 && task_3) 
 callback_function = callback_function_for_tasks_1_3;
 

 while (true) 
 callback_function();
 

 return 0;

The problem is I have to implement 2^n different callback functions, if there are n Boolean variables. Is there a better way to accomplish this?

Ensuring that if statements are evaluated at compile time

C++17 introduces if constexpr, which does exactly this:

template<bool task_1, bool task_2, bool task_3>
void callback_function() 
 if constexpr (task_1) 
 std::cout << "Running task 1" << std::endl;
 
 if constexpr (task_2) 
 std::cout << "Running task 2" << std::endl;
 
 if constexpr (task_3) 
 std::cout << "Running task 3" << std::endl;
 

If you have optimizations enabled, if constexpr isn't necessary. Even if you use a regular if instead of if constexpr, because the bools are now templated, the compiler will be able to eliminate the if statements entirely, and just run the tasks. If you look at the assembly produced here, you'll see that even at -O1, there are no if statements in any of the callback functions.

We can now use callback_function directly as a function pointer, avoiding function<void()>:

int main() 
 using callback_t = void(*)();
 callback_t func = callback_function<true, false, true>;

 // Do stuff with func 

We can also name the bools by assigning them to constexpr variables:

int main() 
 using callback_t = void(*)();
 constexpr bool do_task1 = true;
 constexpr bool do_task2 = false;
 constexpr bool do_task3 = true; 
 callback_t func = callback_function<do_task1, do_task2, do_task3>;

 // Do stuff with func 

Automatically creating a lookup table of all possible callback functions

You mentioned choosing between different callback functions at runtime. We can do this pretty easily with a lookup table, and we can use templates to automatically create a lookup table of all possible callback functions.

The first step is to get a callback function from a particular index:

// void(*)() is ugly to type, so I alias it
using callback_t = void(*)();

// Unpacks the bits 
template<size_t index>
constexpr auto getCallbackFromIndex() -> callback_t 

 constexpr bool do_task1 = (index & 4) != 0;
 constexpr bool do_task2 = (index & 2) != 0;
 constexpr bool do_task3 = (index & 1) != 0; 
 return callback_function<do_task1, do_task2, do_task3>; 

Once we can do that, we can write a function to create a lookup table from a bunch of indexes. Our lookup table will just be a std::array.

// Create a std::array based on a list of flags
// See https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/integer_sequence
// For more information
template<size_t... Indexes>
constexpr auto getVersionLookup(std::index_sequence<Indexes...>) 
 -> std::array<callback_t, sizeof...(Indexes)>

 return getCallbackFromIndex<Indexes>()...; 


// Makes a lookup table containing all 8 possible callback functions
constexpr auto callbackLookupTable = 
 getVersionLookup(std::make_index_sequence<8>()); 

Here, callbackLookupTable contains all 8 possible callback functions, where callbackLookupTable[i] expands the bits of i to get the callback. For example, if i == 6, then i's bits are 110 in binary, so

callbackLookupTable[6] is callback_function<true, true, false>

Using the lookup table at runtime

Using the lookup table is really simple. We can get an index from a bunch of bools by bitshifting:

callback_t getCallbackBasedOnTasks(bool task1, bool task2, bool task3) 
 // Get the index based on bit shifting
 int index = ((int)task1 << 2) + ((int)task2 << 1) + ((int)task3); 
 // return the correct callback
 return callbackLookupTable[index]; 

Example demonstrating how to read in tasks

We can get the bools at runtime now, and just call getCallbackBasedOnTasks to get the correct callback

int main() 
 bool t1, t2, t3;
 // Read in bools
 std::cin >> t1 >> t2 >> t3; 
 // Get the callback
 callback_t func = getCallbackBasedOnTasks(t1, t2, t3); 
 // Invoke the callback
 func(); 

Leave the code as it is.

Execution time of an "if" compared to writing to std::out is practically zero, so you are arguing over nothing. Well, unless you spend some time measuring the execution time as it is, and with the if's removed according to the values of the three constants, and found that there is a real difference.

At most, you might make the function inline or static, and the compiler will probably realise the arguments are always the same when optimisation is turned on. (My compiler would give a warning that you are using a function without a prototype, which means you should have either put a prototype into a header file, telling the compiler to expect calls from other call sites, or you should have made it static, telling the compiler that it knows all the calls and can use static analysis for optimisations).

And what you think is a constant, might not stay a constant forever. The original code will work. Any new code most likely won't.

Short of JIT compilation, you can’t do better than your 2^n functions (and the resulting binary size). You can of course use a template to avoid writing them all out. To prevent the source from scaling exponentially just from selecting the correct implementation, you can write a recursive dispatcher (demo):

template<bool... BB>
auto g() return f<BB...>;
template<bool... BB,class... TT>
auto g(bool b,TT... tt)
return b ? g<BB...,true>(tt...) : g<BB...,false>(tt...);