Precondition:
Here is a function:
typedef std::function<void (int)> Handler;
void g(const Handler& h) {
h(100);
}
, and a class(original version):
class A {
public:
A(int arg)
: m(arg) {}
void f0(int n) {
std::cout << m + n << std::endl;
}
void f() {
::g(std::bind(&A::f0, this, std::placeholders::_1));
}
private:
const int m;
};
And this will print two lines, '101' and '102':
int main() {
A a1(1);
a1.f();
A a2(2);
a2.f();
return 0;
}
Now I realized A::f() will be called very frequently,
so I modified it like this(new version):
class A {
public:
A(int arg)
: m(arg),
handler(std::bind(&A::f0, this, std::placeholders::_1)) {}
void f0(int n) {
std::cout << m + n << std::endl;
}
void f() {
::g(handler);
}
private:
const int m;
const Handler handler;
};
My Questions:
Is it safe to bind this pointer to a member variable?
Is there no functional difference between two versions?
Can I expect the new version will really gain some performance benefit?
(I suspect my compiler(MSVC) will optimize it by itself,
so I may not need to optimize it by myself).
PS.: This question corrects and replaces the previous one: Binding member function to a local static variable
Is it safe to bind this pointer to a member variable?Beware the compiler-generated copy constructor and assignment operator. Consider:A a(42); A b = a;Here,b.handlerstill refers to&a, not&b. This may or may not be what you want.Can I expect the new version will really gain some performance benefit?If you really care, implement it both ways and measure. If you don't measure, then you don't really care.