I am trying to create and use a std::shared_ptr within a class function whose constructor takes in a std::shared_ptr private data member (of the same class) and another std::shared_ptr created with a raw pointer to the class object (this).
Whenever I call the function that creates the std::shared_ptr (foo), I get a _CrtIsValidHeapPointer(block) assertion. I'm assuming it has something to do with the way in which the shared_ptr is being deleted, but I can't seem to figure it out, and I've searched all over the Internet. Maybe I'm not fully understanding how shared_ptrs work.
Is it not acceptable to create a shared_ptr using the this pointer, or a pre-existing shared_ptr data member?
class Containing_Class;
class Some_Class
{
};
class Set_Value_Command
{
public:
Set_Value_Command(std::shared_ptr<Some_Class> ptr1, std::shared_ptr<Containing_Class> ptr2)
: _ptr1(ptr1), _ptr2(ptr2)
{}
private:
std::shared_ptr<Some_Class> _ptr1;
std::shared_ptr<Containing_Class> _ptr2;
};
class Containing_Class
{
public:
Containing_Class(std::shared_ptr<Some_Class> psc)
: _psc(psc)
{}
void foo()
{
std::shared_ptr<Set_Value_Command> command = std::make_shared<Set_Value_Command>(_psc, std::shared_ptr<Containing_Class>(this));
}
private:
std::shared_ptr<Some_Class> _psc;
};
Here is the main() function. When foo() is called, the assertion happens:
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<Some_Class> some_class = std::make_shared<Some_Class>();
Containing_Class cc(some_class);
cc.foo();
}
Is it not acceptable to create a shared_ptr using the this pointer
Not by itself, no. And doing so in your example is very bad. Your Containing_Class object is being created in automatic memory of main()'s local stack frame, and thus will be destroyed automatically when it goes out of scope when main() exits. But creating a shared_ptr from this inside of the Containing_Class object will assign ownership of this to the shared_ptr, which will then try to delete this when there are no more shared_ptr references to this. delete'ing an object that was not created with new to begin with is undefined behavior, and is why you are crashing with an error about an invalid heap pointer.
In order to allow shared_ptr to refer to this, Containing_Class would need to derive from std::enable_shared_from_this, and this would have to point at an object that is created dynamically and owned by a shared_ptr. Only then can Containing_Class call its inherited shared_from_this() method to get a shared_ptr to itself.
For example:
class Containing_Class;
class Some_Class
{
};
class Set_Value_Command
{
public:
Set_Value_Command(std::shared_ptr<Some_Class> ptr1, std::shared_ptr<Containing_Class> ptr2)
: _ptr1(ptr1), _ptr2(ptr2)
{}
private:
std::shared_ptr<Some_Class> _ptr1;
std::shared_ptr<Containing_Class> _ptr2;
};
class Containing_Class : public std::enable_shared_from_this<Containing_Class>
{
public:
Containing_Class(std::shared_ptr<Some_Class> psc)
: _psc(psc)
{}
void foo()
{
std::shared_ptr<Set_Value_Command> command = std::make_shared<Set_Value_Command>(_psc, shared_from_this());
}
private:
std::shared_ptr<Some_Class> _psc;
};
int main()
{
auto some_class = std::make_shared<Some_Class>();
auto cc = std::make_shared<Containing_Class>(some_class);
cc->foo();
}
With the code
std::shared_ptr<Containing_Class>(this)
you introduce a second *this owner, i.e. command is the owner of a shared pointer that controls cc life. That is the first issue. Yet another, following issue is that command is pointing to a stack object.
Usually *this is owned by someone and passing ownership to another owner never works.
The current code is impossible to fix due to lack of the code aim.
Related
I've stared using smart pointer and trying to wrap my head around best uses for it. I've read plenty of articles but I'm confused on which to use in the following example. I've included a shared_ptr and unique_ptrexamples to show what I'm trying to accomplish:
class A
public:
A();
private:
unique_ptr<B> ptrB;
unique_ptr<SomeObject> ptrUnique;
shared_ptr<SomeObject> ptrShared;
A::A()
{
ptrB(new B());
ptrUnique(new SomeObject());
ptrB->PassUnique(ptrUnique);
ptrShared(new SomeObject());
ptrB->PassShared(ptrShared);
}
class B:
public:
void PassUnique(unique_ptr<SomeObject> &ptr_unique);
void PassShared(weak_ptr<SomeObject> &ptr_weak);
void DoSomething();
private:
unique_ptr<SomeObject> ptrUnique;
weak_ptr<SomeObject> ptrWeak;
B::PassUnique(unique_ptr<SomeObject> &ptr_unique)
{
ptrUnique = ptr_unique;
}
B::PassShared(weak_ptr<SomeObject> &ptr_weak)
{
ptrWeak = ptr_weak;
}
B::DoSomething()
{
ptrUnique->SomeMethod();
shared_ptr<SomeObject> ptr1 = ptrWeak.lock();
ptr1->SomeMethod();
}
SomeObject class can be any class. A good example is a database handle that I pass from the parent class A were it was originally initiated to multiple class like B. And from B to C if it exists. My question is if I'm passing a unique_ptr as a reference will setting for example ptrUnqiue = ptr_unique in B:PassUnique create a copy which then is not correct? Or should this be done via shared_ptr? This understanding is what is confusing with smart pointers for me and would appreciate clarification.
Well, this is a question of lifetime. Do you need SomeObject to outlive A? Do B send or is being use outside of this context? You have to decide when your objects dies. If you think SomeObject exists only in this context, I would recommend A to be the owner, as it allocate the resource, and be to old a raw pointer to SomeObject. I would look like this:
class A
public:
A();
private:
unique_ptr<B> ptrB;
unique_ptr<SomeObject> ptrUnique;
};
A::A()
{
ptrB(new B());
ptrUnique(new SomeObject());
ptrB->PassUnique(*ptrUnique);
}
class B:
pubic:
void PassUnique(SomeObject& obj);
void DoSomething();
private:
SomeObject* ptrUnique;
};
B::PassUnique(SomeObject& obj)
{
ptrUnique = &obj;
}
B::DoSomething()
{
ptrUnique->SomeMethod();
}
There is no such thing as
ptrUnique = ptr_unique;
If you need SomeObject to be used and owned outside of this structure, then go with std::shared_ptr like you did. There were no errors with your std::shared_ptr code.
Answer is basically what would be a lifetime of the pointer in the A, B and/or C. Think of it as ranges, [A...a), [B...b) and [C...c). If [B...b) is always within [A...a) and [C...c) is always within [B...b), they have like a Russian dolls hierarchy, then passing down ref-to-ptr is ok. If ranges overlap and changes wildly so you don't really control where last ptr will be destructed and object will be deleted, you'd have to go with shared_ptr.
I was wondering whether using a reference of some interface instead of pointer could result in some complications that I am overlooking. The reason why I want to do this is to make clear which objects should 'delete' pointers given to them on construction and which ones should just use it and not worry about other objects lifetimes to allow for multiple instances to share one object. (shared_ptr is not an option)
Here is an example:
class Parent
{
public:
virtual void WhoAmI() { printf("Parent\n"); }
};
class Child : public Parent
{
public:
void WhoAmI() { printf("Child\n"); }
};
class ParentUser
{
public:
ParentUser(Parent& parent) : _parent(parent) {}
public:
Parent& _parent;
};
class ParentOwner
{
public:
ParentOwner(Parent* pParent): _pParent(pParent), _parentUser(*pParent) {}
~ParentOwner() { delete _pParent; }
public:
Parent* _pParent;
ParentUser _parentUser;
};
int main ()
{
Parent* pParent = new Child();
ParentOwner parentOwner(pParent);
parentOwner._parentUser._parent.WhoAmI();
char stopper;
cin >> stopper;
return 0;
}
This worked correctly and the output was the expected: 'Child'
Your use of a reference to indicate use of an object and a pointer to indicate ownership is perfectly fine. You’ve simply defined your own convention for ownership, and everything should work as long as all your code follows that convention. Note that you can only have one object in your system that has a pointer to the object to be deleted.
In your example, the Child object can be passed as a constructor argument to only one ParentOwner object.
In general the object that allocated the memory should be reponsible for freeing it.
Deleting it in other objects can lead to trouble.
Imagine this scenario:
Object A creates "Obj".
Object A passes it on to object B
Object B deletes it.
Object A who doesn't know "Obj" was deleted passes it now to object C.
Object C tries to use "Obj". BOOM!
According to definition : When an object of this class is copied, the pointer member is copied, but not the pointed buffer, resulting in two objects pointing to the same so we use copy constructor. But in following class there is no copy constructor but it Works! why? Why i dont need to deep copying?
class Human
{
private:
int* aValue;
public:
Human(int* param)
{
aValue=param;
}
void ShowInfos()
{
cout<<"Human's info:"<<*aValue<<endl;
}
};
void JustAFunction(Human m)
{
m.ShowInfos();
}
int main()
{
int age = 10;
Human aHuman(&age);
aHuman.ShowInfos();
JustAFunction(aHuman);
return 0;
}
output:
Human's info : 10
Human's info : 10
A copy constructor is useful when your class owns resources. In your case, it doesn't - it neither creates nor deletes aValue itself.
If you did do that though, say:
Human()
{
aValue=new int;
}
and properly cleaned up the memory:
~Human()
{
delete aValue;
}
then you'd run into issues, because Human a; and Human b(a); would have the members aValue point to the same location, and the when they go out of scope, the same memory is released, resulting in a double delete.
As has already been mentioned, the reason it works for you is that it's actually fine to have multiple pointers pointing to the same object - that's kind of the point, share data without copying it.
the issues arrive if the object pointed to has it's lifetime managed by the wrapping class, ie: it is created and destroyed within methods implemented by the class - typically the class's constructor and destructor. In that case a deep copy would be necessary in the copy constructor.
In your (admittedly contrived) example where the int has a longer lifetime that the object carrying the pointer you should examine using a reference as a member, initialised in an initialiser list. This removes the possibility of forgetting yourself and deleting the object from within the class.
class Human
{
private:
int& aRef;
public:
Human(int& param)
: aRef(param)
{
}
};
You should also consider whether the pointer or reference should be to a const object:
class Human
{
private:
const int& aRef;
public:
Human(const int& param)
: aRef(param)
{
}
};
This works because the pointer in the class points to the stack variable age.
You haven't written a destructor for your class Human, so doesn't try to do a double delete when the Human is copied in JustAFunction
If you used it differently, for example sending a newed int into the class you would have a memory leak instead.
Human human(new int);
If you copy that, you have two pointers pointing to the same memory, which in itself isn't a problem, but makes it hard to decide who is in charge of releasing that memory.
Okay, so let's say I have some random abstract base class Base and I have a class Foo which contains a pointer to this base class as a datamember. So
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(Base*);
private:
Base* ptr;
}
Now the reason I use a pointer to the base class is because I want to be able to choose which derived class my Foo object has a pointer to. Now the tricky part is, to me, the implementation of the constructor for Foo.
If I do it like this
Foo::Foo(Base* _ptr)
{
Foo::ptr = _ptr;
};
it would be possible for the user to adjust the object pointed to by Foo::ptr since _ptr will still exist after the constructor has finished. I cannot make the object pointed to by _ptr constant because Foo::ptr needs to update itself regularly. Now I was thinking about adding a line _ptr = NULL at the end of the constructor, but that could be dangerous as well, since the user could try to dereference _ptr.
The only way I can think of to make this work is to make a copy of the object pointed to by _ptr and initializing Foo::ptr to the address of that copy. But then the object pointed to by _ptr would need to have a member function Clone() or something similar because I can't call the copy constructor for an object of which I don't know the class at compile-time.
So is there any elegant way of doing this if there is no Clone()? Or is that really the only possibility?
Construct from a unique_ptr. That way your user has no access to the pointer after it has been used in the creation of a Foo object (unless he really wants to and uses get).
e.g.
#include <memory>
struct Bar {};
struct Foo {
Foo(std::unique_ptr<Bar>&& ptr) : ptr_(std::move(ptr)) {}
std::unique_ptr<Bar> ptr_;
};
int main()
{
std::unique_ptr<Bar> tt(new Bar());
Foo f(std::move(tt));
return 0;
}
An alternative is using smart pointers. That way, ownership is assigned to the smart pointer implementation.
A question about boost::shared_ptr here:
I have 3 Classes.
A is some kind of Main class which is responsible to manage everything.
B is a class which just has functions to do some work.
Dispatcher is just a class which wraps around a seperate thread, which gets the work from Instaces of Bdone in this thread.
So it is kinda working like this: A has an instance of Dispatcher. Now on occassion A generates an instance of B and passes it to the dispatcher.
The important part is, that B needs to call A::callback() when it's done. This is why B gets a reference to A in it's constructor ( see code below )
A.hpp
class A : public boost::enable_shared_from_this<A>
{
public:
A();
void sendB();
void callback();
private:
Dispatcher m_Dispatcher;
};
B.hpp
class B
{
public:
B(boost::shared_ptr<A> ptr);
boost::shared_ptr<A> m_PointerToA;
/* Some other functions */
};
Dispatcher.hpp
class Dispatcher
{
public:
void run();
void dispatch(boost::shared_ptr<B> b);
private:
void doWork();
boost::thread m_Thread;
};
A.cpp
A::A()
{
m_Dispatcher.run();
}
void A::sendB()
{
boost::shared_ptr ptr_B;
ptr_B.reset(new B(this->shared_from_this);
m_Dispatcher.dispatch(ptr_B);
}
B.cpp
B::B(boost::shared_ptr<A> ptr) :
: m_PointerToA(ptr)
{
}
main_example.cpp
int main()
{
A instanceA;
while(true)
{
instanceA.sendB();
/* Do some other stuff */
}
return 0;
}
So my question is:
Is it reasonable to use boost::shared_ptr for this purpose?
I am not sure if the shared_ptr is the right thing to go here. My problem is, that I don't know what happens exactly when I call the constructor from B and pass it the this pointer. Now according to shared_ptr I would assume that m_PointerToA takes ownership of A. But this would mean that when the work in the Dispatcher is done and my instance of B gets deleted it would also delete the reference to m_PointerToA which would actually mean it kills the object itself despite the fact there is an actual instance of A in the main loop.
Update:
Added some code and updated question itself to make it more clear.
There's nothing particular wrong with this design. However I would prefer to instead use boost::function<> & boost::bind. It gives you way better flexibility for the callback and doesn't tie B as tightly to A. Of course you still have to be vary of the usual threading caveats.
Yes, it is okay to just copy/assign a shared_ptr, it will only increase the reference count.
In your example, shared_from_this() will create a (here: temporary) shared_ptr from the weak_ptr that is hold by this (ref count 1), so when you assign/copy-construct m_PointerToA, the reference count will increase temporarily to 2 before the ctor returns and the temporary object will be destroyed, decreasing the reference count to 1 again (the shared_ptr is "aware" of the one instance in your B object).
So, yes, if B is deleted, it will destroy A in this case (as the reference count drops to 0).
Your concern
This would mean if my Instance of B is deleted, it would also delete m_PointerToA which would also kill my instance of A . Of course my original instance of A is held elsewhere.
only shows that if you plan/need/intend to keep a pointer to the instance of A for further usage, you should do so with a shared_ptr as well instead of a raw pointer. If you have control of A's interface, the easiest way would be a named constructor like this:
class A : public boost::enable_shared_from_this<A> {
public:
static boost::shared_ptr<A> create();
void initClassB();
// ....
private:
A();
A( const A & other );
A& operator=( const A & rhs );
};
boost::shared_ptr<A> A::create() {
return boost::shared_ptr<A>( new A() );
}
Then, even if your instance of B is deleted, the instance of A will still survive because the reference count of the shared_ptr is still (at least) 1.