Returns the raw NACP bytes and the raw icon bytes into a title-provided buffer. Pulls from Registration Cache for control data, returning all zeros should it not exist.
An object to read SaveDataInfo objects, which describe a unique save on the system. This implementation iterates through all the directories in the save data space and uses the paths to reconstruct the metadata.
The data retrieved in these cases are ultimately chiefly owned by either
the RegisteredCache instance itself, or the filesystem factories. Both
these should live throughout the use of their contained data. If they
don't, it should be considered an interface/design issue, and using
shared_ptr instances here would mask that, as the data would always be
prolonged after the main owner's lifetime ended.
This makes the lifetime of the data explicit and makes it harder to
accidentally create cyclic references. It also makes the interface
slightly more flexible than the previous API, as a shared_ptr can be
created from a unique_ptr, but not the other way around, so this allows
for that use-case if it ever becomes necessary in some form.
Neither of these functions alter the ownership of the provided pointer,
so we can simply make the parameters a reference rather than a direct
shared pointer alias. This way we also disallow passing incorrect memory values like
nullptr.
When a destructor isn't defaulted into a cpp file, it can cause the use
of forward declarations to seemingly fail to compile for non-obvious
reasons. It also allows inlining of the construction/destruction logic
all over the place where a constructor or destructor is invoked, which
can lead to code bloat. This isn't so much a worry here, given the
services won't be created and destroyed frequently.
The cause of the above mentioned non-obvious errors can be demonstrated
as follows:
------- Demonstrative example, if you know how the described error happens, skip forwards -------
Assume we have the following in the header, which we'll call "thing.h":
\#include <memory>
// Forward declaration. For example purposes, assume the definition
// of Object is in some header named "object.h"
class Object;
class Thing {
public:
// assume no constructors or destructors are specified here,
// or the constructors/destructors are defined as:
//
// Thing() = default;
// ~Thing() = default;
//
// ... Some interface member functions would be defined here
private:
std::shared_ptr<Object> obj;
};
If this header is included in a cpp file, (which we'll call "main.cpp"),
this will result in a compilation error, because even though no
destructor is specified, the destructor will still need to be generated by
the compiler because std::shared_ptr's destructor is *not* trivial (in
other words, it does something other than nothing), as std::shared_ptr's
destructor needs to do two things:
1. Decrement the shared reference count of the object being pointed to,
and if the reference count decrements to zero,
2. Free the Object instance's memory (aka deallocate the memory it's
pointing to).
And so the compiler generates the code for the destructor doing this inside main.cpp.
Now, keep in mind, the Object forward declaration is not a complete type. All it
does is tell the compiler "a type named Object exists" and allows us to
use the name in certain situations to avoid a header dependency. So the
compiler needs to generate destruction code for Object, but the compiler
doesn't know *how* to destruct it. A forward declaration doesn't tell
the compiler anything about Object's constructor or destructor. So, the
compiler will issue an error in this case because it's undefined
behavior to try and deallocate (or construct) an incomplete type and
std::shared_ptr and std::unique_ptr make sure this isn't the case
internally.
Now, if we had defaulted the destructor in "thing.cpp", where we also
include "object.h", this would never be an issue, as the destructor
would only have its code generated in one place, and it would be in a
place where the full class definition of Object would be visible to the
compiler.
---------------------- End example ----------------------------
Given these service classes are more than certainly going to change in
the future, this defaults the constructors and destructors into the
relevant cpp files to make the construction and destruction of all of
the services consistent and unlikely to run into cases where forward
declarations are indirectly causing compilation errors. It also has the
plus of avoiding the need to rebuild several services if destruction
logic changes, since it would only be necessary to recompile the single
cpp file.
The follow-up to e2457418da, which
replaces most of the includes in the core header with forward declarations.
This makes it so that if any of the headers the core header was
previously including change, then no one will need to rebuild the bulk
of the core, due to core.h being quite a prevalent inclusion.
This should make turnaround for changes much faster for developers.
Avoids the need to rebuild multiple source files if the filesystem code
headers change.
This also gets rid of a few instances of indirect inclusions being
relied upon
The current way were doing it would require copying a 768 character
buffer (part of the Entry struct) to the new element in the vector.
Given it's a plain array, std::move won't eliminate that.
Instead, we can emplace an instance directly into the destination buffer
and then fill it out, avoiding the need to perform any unnecessary
copies.
Given this is done in a loop, we can request the destination to allocate
all of the necessary memory ahead of time, avoiding the need to
potentially keep reallocating over and over on every few insertions into
the vector.
Instead of using an unsigned int as a parameter and expecting a user to
always pass in the correct values, we can just convert the enum into an
enum class and use that type as the parameter type instead, which makes
the interface more type safe.
We also get rid of the bookkeeping "NUM_" element in the enum by just
using an unordered map. This function is generally low-frequency in
terms of calls (and I'd hope so, considering otherwise would mean we're
slamming the disk with IO all the time) so I'd consider this acceptable
in this case.
We can avoid constructing a std::vector here by simply passing a pointer
to the original data and the size of the copy we wish to perform to the
backend's Write() function instead, avoiding copying the data where it's
otherwise not needed.
