Today I learned yet another way to generate accidentally dangling references with C++2a Coroutines.

Boring old way

First of all, here’s the boring old way that I’m sure everyone’s aware of by now:

generator<char> explode(const std::string& s) { for (char ch : s) { co_yield ch; } } int main() { for (char ch : explode("hello world")) { std::cout << ch << '

'; } }

(Run it on Godbolt!)

See, in C++2a-Coroutine-world, the function explode isn’t really one indivisible routine. It’s a coroutine, which means it gets split up by the compiler into a bunch of little code fragments — with the divisions between fragments coming at so-called suspend points — and the only way these fragments communicate with each other is via state stored in the coroutine frame.

What state is stored in explode ’s coroutine frame? Well, it needs ch (or let’s pretend it does for the sake of this example); and it needs s . What’s the type of s ? s is a const std::string& . It’s a reference to the temporary string created on line 1 of main() . And when does that string die? Also on line 1 of main() ! So the reference captured into explode ’s coroutine frame is dangling as soon as explode hits its first suspend point.

Boring old way, redux

Let’s fix that bug. Local variables are preserved by-value in the coroutine frame. So let’s copy s into a local variable ASAP! (Godbolt.)

generator<char> explode(const std::string& s) { std::string copy = s; for (char ch : copy) { co_yield ch; } }

Does this fix the bug? You wish. See, explode ’s first suspend point isn’t at that co_yield . Its first suspend point is initial_suspend , which isn’t visible in the code! So by the time the coroutine gets around to executing std::string copy = s; , the reference s has already gone dangling.

Boring old way, redux2

Notice that we would have the same kind of issue if we used any “reference-semantic” type. It doesn’t have to be a native reference.

generator<char> explode(std::string_view sv) { for (char ch : sv) { co_yield ch; // Same bug! } }

Exciting new way to dangle a reference

Okay. Now let me show you the one I just learned on Slack today. (Hat tip to mikezackles, Lewis Baker, and Mathias Stearn!) (Godbolt.)

generator<char> explode(const std::string& s) { return [s]() -> generator<char> { for (char ch : s) { co_yield ch; } }(); } int main() { for (char ch : explode("hello world")) { std::cout << ch << '

'; } }

This version uses an immediately invoked lambda expression (IILE — we love our acronyms!) where the body of the lambda is itself a coroutine (because it uses co_yield ). In this version, explode is not a coroutine; it’s just a plain old subroutine.

You call explode .

explode constructs a lambda object.

explode invokes that lambda’s operator() (which btw is a coroutine).

explode destroys that lambda object.

explode returns to its caller.

And what happens to the s that is being used by the body of that coroutine? It’s destroyed along with the rest of the lambda object, at the closing curly brace of explode ! By the time you’re back in main() , trying to step through the characters of that string, it’s a dangling reference.

C++2a Coroutines are super sneaky. They’ll slip in a dangling reference just about anywhere.

Under construction

There are some active proposals out there that recognize the dangling-reference problem with C++2a Coroutines; specifically I’m thinking of P1063 “Core Coroutines” and P1342 “Unifying Coroutines TS and Core Coroutines.”

Lewis Baker’s P1745 “Coroutine changes for C++20 and beyond” and of course Antony Polukhin’s P1485 “Better keywords for the Coroutines TS” (previously discussed here) are also in the general space of “recent exploration of the Coroutines space,” unrelated to the dangling-reference issues.

I expect that even if none of these changes get into the Working Draft, it will take at least six months for the community to find all the biggest problems with Coroutines. Once the problems are found, it’ll take another year to propose and discuss solutions. And those solutions may themselves result in new serious problems — it’ll take another six months after that even to be confident if they don’t cause new issues.

I see the same cycle of “heroic paper — oops — second heroic paper — oops —” playing out with operator<=> at the moment. The previous cycle was P1185 (adopted in Kona). The current cycle is P1186 and P1614 (likely to be adopted in Cologne, if I understand correctly). The upcoming cycle is P1630 (and whatever happens with NTTPs; see “Enums break strong structural equality” (2019-07-04) and Jorg Brown’s P1714).

It’s one thing to say “the perfect is the enemy of the good” and “sometimes worse is better.” It’s quite another thing to send the ship to sea while it is still actively being built. Now, maybe the proper alternative in this ship metaphor is to wait until the last minute, then vote the workmen off the ship, quickly verify that they’ve taken all their dropcloths and things with them, and send the ship right on out. But I feel like it would be more productive, and even safer, to re-schedule the launch with enough time that not only might the workmen finish their jobs, but the ship’s passengers might thoroughly verify that the work has been completed and the dropcloths removed.