Russian Roulette and C++ Coroutines¶

한국어

In this post, I'd like to show an example which separates definition of a behavior and its execution.

For the example, the Russian Roulette is used. Following its famous rule, the players' behavior are defined using the coroutine and a game with those players will written be written in an ordinary subroutine.

Making a revolver 1: Chamber/Trigger¶

Let's start with makeing a revolver. Since we don't know how many players are going to join, uint32_t will be used to define the value space for the chamber. And we need an additional function, select_chamber , to select one chamber value.

#include <random> // for this example, // chamber_t is the indices of the revolver's chambers using chamber_t = uint32_t ; auto select_chamber () -> chamber_t { std :: random_device device {}; std :: mt19937_64 gen { device ()}; return static_cast < chamber_t > ( gen ()); }

This is indeed the most simple implementation. It might be more complex for the real case, but let's use it anyway.

We need a trigger now. Of course it can be pull ed, and it knows which chamber is loaded and which chamber is going to be fired for the moment( current ). After pull operation, simply decreasing 1 from the chamber_t 's value. Remind that we are going to use a revolver!

// trigger fires the bullet class trigger_t { protected : const chamber_t & loaded ; chamber_t current ; public : trigger_t ( const chamber_t & _loaded , chamber_t _current ) : loaded { _loaded }, current { _current } { } private : bool pull () { // pull the trigger. is it the bad case? return -- current == loaded ; } // ... };

Defining the players' behavior¶

In addition to that, let's make the trigger to an awaitable type. So all players can wait for the bullet after pulling it.

// trigger fires the bullet // all players will 'wait' for it class trigger_t { // ... public : bool await_ready () { return false ; } void await_suspend ( coroutine_handle < void > ) { } bool await_resume () { return pull (); } };

By doing so, each player will be in one of the 3 state.

Pulled the trigger, and not fired. (Alive!)

Pulled the trigger, and fired. (Hold X to pay respect)

Waiting for its turn, and another player received the bullet.

In the 'code' form, it will be like the following.

index is for distinguishing each player instance. fired should be non-local since the other player will monitor its value. Also trigger is passed by reference because all players share 1 revolver.

// this player will ... // 1. be bypassed // (fired = false; then return) // 2. receive the bullet // (fired = true; then return) // 3. be skipped because of the other player became a victim // (destroyed when it is suspended - no output) auto player ( gsl :: index id , bool & fired , trigger_t & trigger ) -> user_behavior_t { // bang ! fired = co_await trigger ; fired ? printf ( "player %zu dead :(

" , id ) : printf ( "player %zu alive :)

" , id ); }

What a short function!

Remind that trigger_t is an awaitable type. So each player will suspend immediately after pulling the trigger. After all players become suspended, then we will resume them one by one. When a player is resumed, it will check the return value of the await_resume and notify the resule( fired ) by storing the result. Of course the player behavior branches with it.

Making a revolver 2¶

Let me explain about the user_behavior_t after finishing the definition of the revolver and the game. 1 revolver owns 1 trigger. The point will be expressed through the implementation inheritance. In addition to that, revolver_t must be aware of the loaded chamber.

// revolver knows which is the loaded chamber class revolver_t : public trigger_t { const chamber_t loaded ; public : revolver_t ( chamber_t current , chamber_t num_player ) : trigger_t { loaded , num_player }, // loaded { current % num_player } { } };

Because someone must win the prize, we didn't forget to apply modular arithmetic.

Progress of the game¶

Now it's time to define a execution of the game. I already told you it's an ordinay subroutine. Assume that we have 6 players for 1 game.

#include <array> int main ( int , char * []) { // select some chamber with the users array < user_behavior_t , 6 > users {}; revolver_t revolver { select_chamber (), static_cast < chamber_t > ( users . max_size ())}; russian_roulette ( revolver , users ); return EXIT_SUCCESS ; }

The game, russian_roulette is invoked with the resources. You may not aware of the the GSL(C++ Core Guideline Support Library), but don't take it so hard. gsl::span is a pair of the pointer and length to support range- for statement, gsl::finally invokes a given funcion object in its destuction phase. Here, by using it we can guarantee clean up of the coroutine frame.

#include <gsl/gsl> // the game will go on until the revolver fires its bullet auto russian_roulette ( revolver_t & revolver , gsl :: span < user_behavior_t > users ) { bool fired = false ; // spawn player coroutines with their id gsl :: index id {}; for ( auto & user : users ) user = player ( ++ id , fired , revolver ); // cleanup the game on return auto on_finish = gsl :: finally ([ users ] { for ( coroutine_handle < void >& frame : users ) frame . destroy (); }); // until there is a victim ... for ( id = 0u ; fired == false ; id = ( id + 1 ) % users . size ()) { // continue the users' behavior in round-robin manner coroutine_handle < void >& task = users [ id ]; if ( task . done () == false ) task . resume (); } }

Like I said all player s share fired variable and revolver instance. Their behavior is defined using the coroutine. russian_roulette subroutine becomes the moderator of the game with the control flow. It's task is to continue this turn-based game by resuming each player coroutine. When they are resumed through task.resume() first time, they will pull the trigger and suspend again.

The game continues (by resume) until fired becomes true .

When there is a victim, the subroutine will return and on_finish object will destroy all players' coroutine frame. Simply using frame.destroy() will do the work.

Return type for the player coroutine¶

In C++ 20 Coroutines, the return type of the coroutine must fulfill the Coroutine Promise Requirement. user_behavior_t is such kind of the type.

You can see the Lewiss Baker's post about it

The first thing we have to do is to define user_behavior_t::promise_type which manages the coroutine frame. We can use coroutine_traits<user_behavior_t, ...>::promise_type to do the work, but let's go through the easy way :)

#include <experimental/coroutine> using namespace std ; using namespace std :: experimental ; class promise_manual_control { public : auto initial_suspend () { return suspend_always {}; // suspend after invoke } auto final_suspend () { return suspend_always {}; // suspend after return } void unhandled_exception () { // this example never 'throw'. so nothing to do } };

Each function's role is like the following.

initial_suspend : Decide whether to suspend after the coroutine functions is invoked. At this moment the coroutine's frame is allocated.

: Decide whether to suspend after the coroutine functions is invoked. At this moment the coroutine's frame is allocated. final_suspend : Decide whether to suspend after the coroutine function is returned( co_return ).

: Decide whether to suspend after the coroutine function is returned( ). unhandled_exception : Invoked when an exception is thrown in the coroutine function's body

Returning suspend_always type means that the coroutine is willing to suspend for the defined moment. If you don't want to suspend and continue the flow, you should return suspend_never .

For this example, player coroutine's creation, progress(suspend/resume), destruction is fully managed by the subroutine russian_roulette . So we will return suspend_always type and forget about the other concerns.

Exposing the player coroutine's frame¶

user_behavior_t::promise_type inherits promise_manual_control and add 2 funtion to meet the requirement.

return_void : invoked just after co_return

: invoked just after get_return_object : the function's return becomes the return type of the coroutine function. Here, we will return user_behavior_t directly.

// behavior will be defined as a coroutine class user_behavior_t : public coroutine_handle < void > { public : class promise_type : public promise_manual_control { public : void return_void () { } auto get_return_object () -> user_behavior_t { return { this }; } }; private : user_behavior_t ( promise_type * p ) : coroutine_handle < void > {} { coroutine_handle < void >& self = * this ; self = coroutine_handle < promise_type >:: from_promise ( * p ); } public : user_behavior_t () = default ; };

The inheritance is public . So it exposes those member functions which controls the coroutine. ( resume , done , and destroy )

After its base class construction, coroutine_handle<void> is in the empty state. Here, I used the simplest way to translate promise_type to its matching coroutine_handle<void> . You can see that from_promise of the coroutine_handle<promise_type> is doing the work.

Unless we trust the execution manager, russian_roulette , such exposure won't matter. Remind that coroutine_handle<void> follows the semantics of void* . So if you want to prevent some mistakes for future extenstion, you had better define or delete copy/move functions and its destructor.

You can run the all-in-one code with the Compiler Explorer.

Like https://github.com/Naios/continuable, C++ Coroutines can be used like a sugar for the future<T> . But that's the not only usage.

Since the coroutine frame contains an index to distinguish its suspension points, we can't tell it is totaly different from the state pattern. We need to define awaitable type and the return types for our logic, but by doing so the point of suspension and continuation can be written more naturally.

For my perspective this gives more resilience to the code.