R – (or should be) the cyclomatic complexity of a virtual function call

code metricscyclomatic-complexitylanguage-agnosticswitch statementvirtual-functions

Cyclomatic Complexity provides a rough metric for how hard to understand a given function is, or how much potential for containing bugs it has. In the implementations I've read about, usually all of the basic control flow constructs (if, case, while, for, etc.) increase the complexity of a function by 1. It appears to me given that cyclomatic complexity is intended to determine "the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code" that virtual function calls should increase the cyclomatic complexity of a function as well, because of the ambiguity of which implementation will be called at runtime (the call creates another branch in the path of execution).

However, penalizing the function the same amount that one would if it contained an equivalent switch statement (one point for every 'case' keyword, with one case keyword for every class in the hierarchy implementing the virtual function in question) feels overly harsh, because a virtual function call is generally regarded as much better programming practice.

What should the cost in cyclomatic complexity of a virtual function call be? I'm not sure if my reasoning is an argument against the utility of cyclomatic complexity as a metric or one against the use of virtual functions or something different.

Edit: After people's responses I realized that it shouldn't add to cyclomatic complexity because we could consider the virtual function call equivalent to a call to a global function that contains the massive switch statement. Even though that function will get a bad score, it only exists once in the program, whereas replacing each virtual function call directly with switch statement would cause the cost many times.

Best Answer

Cyclomatic complexity usually does not apply across function call boundaries, but is an intra-function metric. Hence, virtual calls do not count any more than non-virtual, static function calls.

Related Solutions

Should a function have only one return statement

I often have several statements at the start of a method to return for "easy" situations. For example, this:

public void DoStuff(Foo foo)
{
    if (foo != null)
    {
        ...
    }
}

... can be made more readable (IMHO) like this:

public void DoStuff(Foo foo)
{
    if (foo == null) return;

    ...
}

So yes, I think it's fine to have multiple "exit points" from a function/method.

What and where are the stack and heap

The stack is the memory set aside as scratch space for a thread of execution. When a function is called, a block is reserved on the top of the stack for local variables and some bookkeeping data. When that function returns, the block becomes unused and can be used the next time a function is called. The stack is always reserved in a LIFO (last in first out) order; the most recently reserved block is always the next block to be freed. This makes it really simple to keep track of the stack; freeing a block from the stack is nothing more than adjusting one pointer.

The heap is memory set aside for dynamic allocation. Unlike the stack, there's no enforced pattern to the allocation and deallocation of blocks from the heap; you can allocate a block at any time and free it at any time. This makes it much more complex to keep track of which parts of the heap are allocated or freed at any given time; there are many custom heap allocators available to tune heap performance for different usage patterns.

Each thread gets a stack, while there's typically only one heap for the application (although it isn't uncommon to have multiple heaps for different types of allocation).

To answer your questions directly:

To what extent are they controlled by the OS or language runtime?

The OS allocates the stack for each system-level thread when the thread is created. Typically the OS is called by the language runtime to allocate the heap for the application.

What is their scope?

The stack is attached to a thread, so when the thread exits the stack is reclaimed. The heap is typically allocated at application startup by the runtime, and is reclaimed when the application (technically process) exits.

What determines the size of each of them?

The size of the stack is set when a thread is created. The size of the heap is set on application startup, but can grow as space is needed (the allocator requests more memory from the operating system).

What makes one faster?

The stack is faster because the access pattern makes it trivial to allocate and deallocate memory from it (a pointer/integer is simply incremented or decremented), while the heap has much more complex bookkeeping involved in an allocation or deallocation. Also, each byte in the stack tends to be reused very frequently which means it tends to be mapped to the processor's cache, making it very fast. Another performance hit for the heap is that the heap, being mostly a global resource, typically has to be multi-threading safe, i.e. each allocation and deallocation needs to be - typically - synchronized with "all" other heap accesses in the program.

A clear demonstration:
_{Image source: vikashazrati.wordpress.com}

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Should a function have only one return statement

What and where are the stack and heap

Related Topic