Related
Say, I have a vector of dynamic object pointers and have different threads working on those objects.
It is possible that while one thread is working on an object, the main thread is deleting it. It does this by setting a flag in the object to mark it for deletion and then starting to free up its memory.
I have thought about taking care of this by checking for the flag before each single access to the object, but theoretically the following could happen (example code for illustration, although I am trying to make it reflect the situation as best as possible there could still be errors in it):
object = copyPointerFromVector(someIndex);
if(!object->markedForDeletion){
---flag set, object cleaned up by main thread and erased from vector
object->getValues(something); //crash with access violation
}
While it is probably rare this of course is still unacceptable. As someone obviously very very rusty with multi-threading, what is the right way of solving this issue?
Note up front: I assume you know about synchronization (mutexes, condition variables, atomics etc), i.e. the primitive building blocks used for multithreaded programming and that your question is about how to use them. You need those basics.
The problem you have is basically one of unclear ownership, not one of synchronization. Of course, ownership between threads requires synchronization, so it is also involved. Still, when one part of your program is destroying a shared object while another part is still using it, it's because it wrongly assumes it was the sole owner and could dispose of the object. More generally, in multithreading, you could also say that it changes data structures without synchronization, but this case is special enough and there are according tools to deal with it.
The tools to deal with this are called reference counting and garbage collection. Of those, the easiest to apply is probably reference counting. For that, all you need is a smart pointer that keeps track of the number of owners of an object. For example, std::shared_ptr gives you exactly that and it manages the reference count in a thread-safe way. In order to "delete" an object from the mentioned vector, you just remove the smart pointer. If the refcount goes to zero, it was the last one and gets deleted for you.
Garbage collection is a bit more complex. It involves scanning your process memory for references/pointers to objects and deleting the objects which aren't referenced any more. This requires installing a garbage collector though and it's a more complex change to an existing program.
C++11 introduced reference-counted smart pointers, std::shared_ptr. Being reference counted, these pointers are unable to automatically reclaim cyclic data structures. However, automatic collection of reference cycles was shown to be possible, for example by Python and PHP. To distinguish this technique from garbage collection, the rest of the question will refer to it as cycle breaking.
Given that there seem to be no proposals to add equivalent functionality to C++, is there a fundamental reason why a cycle breaker similar to the ones already deployed in other languages wouldn't work for std::shared_ptr?
Note that this question doesn't boil down to "why isn't there a GC for C++", which has been asked before. A C++ GC normally refers to a system that automatically manages all dynamically allocated objects, typically implemented using some form of Boehm's conservative collector. It has been pointed out that such a collector is not a good match for RAII. Since a garbage collector primarily manages memory, and might not even be called until there is a memory shortage, and C++ destructors manage other resources, relying on the GC to run destructors would introduce non-determinism at best and resource starvation at worst. It has also bee pointed out that a full-blown GC is largely unnecessary in the presence of the more explicit and predictable smart pointers.
However, a library-based cycle breaker for smart pointers (analogous to the one used by reference-counted interpreters) would have important differences from a general-purpose GC:
It only cares about objects managed through shared_ptr. Such objects already participate in shared ownership, and thus have to handle delayed destructor invocation, whose exact timing depends on ownership structure.
Due to its limited scope, a cycle breaker is unconcerned with patterns that break or slow down Boehm GC, such as pointer masking or huge opaque heap blocks that contain an occasional pointer.
It can be opt-in, like std::enable_shared_from_this. Objects that don't use it don't have to pay for the additional space in the control block to hold the cycle breaker metadata.
A cycle breaker doesn't require a comprehensive list of "root" objects, which is hard to obtain in C++. Unlike a mark-sweep GC which finds all live objects and discards the rest, a cycle breaker only traverses objects that can form cycles. In existing implementations, the type needs to provide help in the form of a function that enumerates references (direct or indirect) to other objects that can participate in a cycle.
It relies on regular "destroy when reference count drops to zero" semantics to destroy cyclic garbage. Once a cycle is identified, the objects that participate in it are requested to clear their strongly-held references, for example by calling reset(). This is enough to break the cycle and would automatically destroy the objects. Asking the objects to provide and clear its strongly-held references (on request) makes sure that the cycle breaker does not break encapsulation.
Lack of proposals for automatic cycle breaking indicates that the idea was rejected for practical or philosophical reasons. I am curious as what the reasons are. For completeness, here are some possible objections:
"It would introduce non-deterministic destruction of cyclic shared_ptr objects." If the programmer were in control of the cycle breaker's invocation, it would not be non-deterministic. Also, once invoked, the cycle breaker's behavior would be predictable - it would destroy all currently known cycles. This is akin to how shared_ptr destructor destroys the underlying object once its reference count drops to zero, despite the possibility of this causing a "non-deterministic" cascade of further destructions.
"A cycle breaker, just like any other form of garbage collection, would introduce pauses in program execution." Experience with runtimes that implement this feature shows that the pauses are minimal because the GC only handles cyclic garbage, and all other objects are reclaimed by reference counting. If the cycle detector is never invoked automatically, the cycle breaker's "pause" could be a predictable consequence of running it, similar to how destroying a large std::vector might run a large number of destructors. (In Python, the cyclic gc is run automatically, but there is API to disable it temporarily in code sections where it is not needed. Re-enabling the GC later will pick up all cyclic garbage created in the meantime.)
"A cycle breaker is unnecessary because cycles are not that frequent and they can be easily avoided using std::weak_ptr." Cycles in fact turn up easily in many simple data structures - e.g. a tree where children have a back-pointer to the parent, or a doubly-linked list. In some cases, cycles between heterogenous objects in complex systems are formed only occasionally with certain patterns of data and are hard to predict and avoid. In some cases it is far from obvious which pointer to replace with the weak variant.
There are a number of issues to be discussed here, so I've rewritten my post to better condense this information.
Automatic cycle detection
Your idea is to have a circle_ptr smart pointer (I know you want to add it to shared_ptr, but it's easier to talk about a new type to compare the two). The idea is that, if the type that the smart pointer is bound to derives from some cycle_detector_mixin, this activates automatic cycle detection.
This mixin also requires that the type implement an interface. It must provide the ability to enumerate all of the circle_ptr instances directly owned by that instance. And it must provide the means to invalidate one of them.
I submit that this is a highly impractical solution to this problem. It is excessively fragile and requires immense amounts of manual work from the user. And therefore, it is not appropriate for inclusion in the standard library. And here are some reasons why.
Determinism and cost
"It would introduce non-deterministic destruction of cyclic shared_ptr objects." Cycle detection only happens when a shared_ptr's reference count drops to zero, so the programmer is in control of when it happens. It would therefore not be non-deterministic. Its behavior would be predictable - it would destroy all currently known cycles from that pointer. This is akin to how shared_ptr destructor destroys the underlying object once its reference count drops to zero, despite the possibility of this causing a "non-deterministic" cascade of further destructions.
This is true, but not in a helpful way.
There is a substantial difference between the determinism of regular shared_ptr destruction and the determinism of what you suggest. Namely: shared_ptr is cheap.
shared_ptr's destructor does an atomic decrement, followed by a conditional test to see if the value was decremented to zero. If so, a destructor is called and memory is freed. That's it.
What you suggest makes this more complicated. Worst-case, every time a circle_ptr is destroyed, the code will have to walk through data structures to determine if there's a cycle. Most of the time, cycles won't exist. But it still has to look for them, just to make sure. And it must do so every single time you destroy a circle_ptr.
Python et. al. get around this problem because they are built into the language. They are able to see everything that's going on. And therefore, they can detect when a pointer is assigned at the time those assignments are made. In this way, such systems are constantly doing small amounts of work to build up cyclic chains. Once a reference goes away, it can look at its data structures and take action if that creates a cyclical chain.
But what you're suggesting is a library feature, not a language feature. And library types can't really do that. Or rather, they can, but only with help.
Remember: an instance of circle_ptr cannot know the subobject it is a member of. It cannot automatically transform a pointer to itself into a pointer to its owning class. And without that ability, it cannot update the data structures in the cycle_detector_mixin that owns it if it is reassigned.
Now, it could manually do this, but only with help from its owning instance. Which means that circle_ptr would need a set of constructors that are given a pointer to its owning instance, which derives from cycle_detector_mixin. And then, its operator= would be able to inform its owner that it has been updated. Obviously, the copy/move assignment would not copy/move the owning instance pointer.
Of course, this requires the owning instance to give a pointer to itself to every circle_ptr that it creates. In every constructor&function that creates circle_ptr instances. Within itself and any classes it owns which are not also managed by cycle_detection_mixin. Without fail. This creates a degree of fragility in the system; manual effort must be expended for each circle_ptr instance owned by a type.
This also requires that circle_ptr contain 3 pointer types: a pointer to the object you get from operator*, a pointer to the actual managed storage, and a pointer to that instance's owner. The reason that the instance must contain a pointer to its owner is that it is per-instance data, not information associated with the block itself. It is the instance of circle_ptr that needs to be able to tell its owner when it is rebound, so the instance needs that data.
And this must be static overhead. You can't know when a circle_ptr instance is within another type and when it isn't. So every circle_ptr, even those that don't use the cycle detection features, must bear this 3 pointer cost.
So not only does this require a large degree of fragility, it's also expensive, bloating the type's size by 50%. Replacing shared_ptr with this type (or more to the point, augmenting shared_ptr with this functionality) is just not viable.
On the plus side, you no longer need users who derive from cycle_detector_mixin to implement a way to fetch the list of circle_ptr instances. Instead, you have the class register itself with the circle_ptr instances. This allows circle_ptr instances that could be cyclic to talk directly to their owning cycle_detector_mixin.
So there's something.
Encapsulation and invariants
The need to be able to tell a class to invalidate one of its circle_ptr objects fundamentally changes the way the class can interact with any of its circle_ptr members.
An invariant is some state that a piece of code assumes is true because it should be logically impossible for it to be false. If you check that a const int variable is > 0, then you have established an invariant for later code that this value is positive.
Encapsulation exists to allow you to be able to build invariants within a class. Constructors alone can't do it, because external code could modify any values that the class stores. Encapsulation allows you to prevent external code from making such modifications. And therefore, you can develop invariants for various data stored by the class.
This is what encapsulation is for.
With a shared_ptr, it is possible to build an invariant around the existence of such a pointer. You can design your class so that the pointer is never null. And therefore, nobody has to check for it being null.
That's not the case with circle_ptr. If you implement the cycle_detector_mixin, then your code must be able to handle the case of any of those circle_ptr instances becoming null. Your destructor therefore cannot assume that they are valid, nor can any code that your destructor calls make that assumption.
Your class therefore cannot establish an invariant with the object pointed to by circle_ptr. At least, not if it's part of a cycle_detector_mixin with its associated registration and whatnot.
You can argue that your design does not technically break encapsulation, since the circle_ptr instances can still be private. But the class is willingly giving up encapsulation to the cycle detection system. And therefore, the class can no longer ensure certain kinds of invariants.
That sounds like breaking encapsulation to me.
Thread safety
In order to access a weak_ptr, the user must lock it. This returns a shared_ptr, which ensures that the object will remain alive (if it still was). Locking is an atomic operation, just like reference incrementing/decrementing. So this is all thread-safe.
circle_ptrs may not be very thread safe. It may be possible for a circle_ptr to become invalid from another thread, if the other thread released the last non-circular reference to it.
I'm not entirely sure about this. It may be that such circumstances only appear if you've already had a data race on the object's destruction, or are using a non-owning reference. But I'm not sure that your design can be thread safe.
Virulence factors
This idea is incredibly viral. Every other type where cyclic references can happen must implement this interface. It's not something you can put on one type. In order to get the benefits, every type that could participate in a cyclical reference must use it. Consistently and correctly.
If you try to make circle_ptr require that the object it manages implement cycle_detector_mixin, then you make it impossible to use such a pointer with any other type. It wouldn't be a replacement of (or augmentation for) shared_ptr. So there is no way for a compiler to help detect accidental misuse.
Sure, there are accidental misuses of make_shared_from_this that cannot be detected by compilers. However, that is not a viral construct. It is therefore only a problem for those who need this feature. By contrast, the only way to get a benefit from cycle_detector_mixin is to use it as comprehensively as possible.
Equally importantly, because this idea is so viral, you will be using it a lot. And therefore, you are far more likely to encounter the multiple-inheritance problem than users of make_shared_from_this. And that's not a minor issue. Especially since cycle_detector_mixin will likely use static_cast to access the derived class, so you won't be able to use virtual inheritance.
Summation
So here is what you must do, without fail, in order to detect cycles, none of which the compiler will verify:
Every class participating in a cycle must be derived from cycle_detector_mixin.
Anytime a cycle_detector_mixin-derived class constructs a circle_ptr instance within itself (either directly or indirectly, but not within a class that itself derives from cycle_detector_mixin), pass a pointer to yourself to that cycle_ptr.
Don't assume that any cycle_ptr subobject of a class is valid. Possibly even to the extent of becoming invalid within a member function thanks to threading issues.
And here are the costs:
Cycle-detecting data structures within cycle_detector_mixin.
Every cycle_ptr must be 50% bigger, even the ones that aren't used for cycle detection.
Misconceptions about ownership
Ultimately, I think this whole idea comes down to a misconception about what shared_ptr is actually for.
"A cycle detector is unnecessary because cycles are not that frequent and they can be easily avoided using std::weak_ptr." Cycles in fact turn up easily in many simple data structures - e.g. a tree where children have a back-pointer to the parent, or a doubly-linked list. In some cases, cycles between heterogenous objects in complex systems are formed only occasionally with certain patterns of data and are hard to predict and avoid. In some cases it is far from obvious which pointer to replace with the weak variant.
This is a very common argument for general-purpose GC. The problem with this argument is that it usually makes an assumption about the use of smart pointers that just isn't valid.
To use a shared_ptr means something. If a class stores a shared_ptr, that represents that the class has ownership of that object.
So explain this: why does a node in a linked list need to own both the next and previous nodes? Why does a child node in a tree need to own its parent node? Oh, they need to be able to reference the other nodes. But they do not need to control the lifetime of them.
For example, I would implement a tree node as an array of unique_ptr to their children, with a single pointer to the parent. A regular pointer, not a smart pointer. After all, if the tree is constructed correctly, the parent will own its children. So if a child node exists, it's parent node must exist; the child cannot exist without having a valid parent.
With a double linked list, I might have the left pointer be a unique_ptr, with the right being a regular pointer. Or vice-versa; one way is no better than the other.
Your mentality seems to be that we should always be using shared_ptr for things, and just let the automatic system work out how to deal with the problems. Whether it's circular references or whatever, just let the system figure it out.
That's not what shared_ptr is for. The goal of smart pointers is not that you don't think about ownership anymore; it's that you can express ownership relationships directly in code.
Overall
How is any of this an improvement over using weak_ptr to break cycles? Instead of recognizing when cycles might happen and doing extra work, you now do a bunch of extra work everywhere. Work that is exceedingly fraglile; if you do it wrong, you're no better off than if you missed a place where you should have used weak_ptr. Only it's worse, because you probably think your code is safe.
The illusion of safety is worse than no safety at all. At least the latter makes you careful.
Could you implement something like this? Possibly. Is it an appropriate type for the standard library? No. It's just too fragile. You must implement it correctly, at all times, in all ways, everywhere that cycles might appear... or you get nothing.
Authoritative references
There can be no authoritative references for something that was never proposed, suggested, or even imagined for standardization. Boost has no such type, and such constructs were never even considered for boost::shared_ptr. Even the very first smart pointer paper (PDF) never considered the possibility. The subject of expanding shared_ptr to automatically be able to handle cycles through some manual effort has never been discussed even on the standard proposal forums where far stupider ideas have been deliberated.
The closest to a reference I can provide is this paper from 1994 about a reference-counted smart pointer. This paper basically talks about making the equivalent of shared_ptr and weak_ptr part of the language (this was in the early days; they didn't even think it was possible to write a shared_ptr that allowed casting a shared_ptr<T> to a shared_ptr<U> when U is a base of T). But even so, it specifically says that cycles would not be collected. It doesn't spend much time on why not, but it does state this:
However, cycles of collected objects with clean-up
functions are problematic. If A and B are reachable from
each other, then destroying either one first will violate
the ordering guarantee, leaving a dangling pointer. If the
collector breaks the cycle arbitrarily, programmers would
have no real ordering guarantee, and subtle, time-dependent
bugs could result. To date, no one has devised a safe,
general solution to this problem [Hayes 92].
This is essentially the encapsulation/invariant issue I pointed out: making a pointer member of a type invalid breaks an invariant.
So basically, few people have even considered the possibility, and those few who did quickly discarded it as being impractical. If you truly believe that they're wrong, the single best way to prove it is by implementing it yourself. Then propose it for standardization.
std::weak_ptr is the solution to this problem. Your worry about
a tree where children have a back-pointer to the parent
can be solved by using raw pointers as the back-pointer. You have no worry of leakage if you think about it.
and your worry about
doubly-linked list
is solved by std::weak_ptr or a raw one.
I believe that the answer to your question is that, contrary to what you claim, there is no efficient way to automatically handle cyclic references. Checking for cycles must be carried out every time a "shared_ptr" is destroyed. On the other hand, introducing any deferring mechanism will inevitably result in a undetermined behavior.
The shared_ptr was not made for automatic reclamation of circular references. It existed in the boost library for some time before being copied to STL. It is a class that attaches a reference counter to any c++ object - be it an array, a class, or an int. It is a relatively lightweight and self-sufficient class. It does not know what it contains, with exception that it knows a deleter function to call when needed.
Al this cycle resolution requires too much heavy code. If you like GC, you can use another language, that was designed for GC from the beginning. Bolting it on via STL would look ugly. A language extension as in C++/CLI would be much nicer.
By reference counting what you ask for is impossible. In order to identify a circle one would have to hold identification of the references to your object. That is easy in memory managed languages since the virtual machine knows who references whom.
In c++ you can only do that by holding a list of references in the circular pointer of e.g. UUID that identifies the object referencing your resources. This would imply that the uuid is somehow passed into the structure when the object is acquired, or that the pointer has access to that resources internals.
These now become implementation specific, since you require a different pointer interface e.g copy and assignment could not be implemented as raw pointers, and demand from every platform to have a uuid source, which cannot be the case for every system. You could of course provide the memory address as a uuid .
Still to overcome the copy , and proper assignment without having a specialized assign method would probably require a single source that allocates references. This cannot be embedded in the language, but may be implemented for a specific application as global registry.
Apart from that, copying such a larger shared pointer would incurr larger performance impact, since during those operations on would have to make lookups for adding , removing, or resolving cycles. Since , doing cycle detection in a graph, from a complexity point of view, would require to traverse the graph registered and apply DFS with backtracking, which is at least proportional to the size of references, I don't see how all these do not scream GC.
I'm a c++ newbie, my code currently new's up on the heap in several places without calling delete. I know I need to do something about this.
My typical usage is where I new up a class instance in another classes member method then the method returns the pointer to the object.
If i change the return types from MyType* to std::tr1::shared_ptr will this fix my code to not leak memory?
Thanks a lot.
Edit:
Also likewise, I currently store new'ed up objects as MyType* as a value in a std:map. This map is a private member to a class instance. If I simply change this to std::tr1::shared_ptr will this clear up these when it's owner (class) falls out of scope?
Thanks again
It's a reasonable band-aid, sure.
A shared pointer is a reference-counted pointer. So as long as one or more shared_ptrs exist pointing to an object, that object will be kept alive. The problem occurs if you have circular references. Then the reference count will never reach 0, and the object(s) will never be deleted.
So shared_ptr * still* require you to understand what you're doing and think about object ownership, as you always have to do in C++. But it simplifies some otherwise complex scenarios, where determining ownership is hard.
But the real fix to your problem is to:
minimize how much you allocate with new. Can the object instead be stored on the stack? Can the object be rewritten as a RAII class, so that a small wrapper object is allocated on the stack (or elsewhere with automatic storage duration), and which, through its constructors and destructors, manages a heap-allocated memory resource? Then, as long as that object exists, its allocated memory will be preserved, and once it is destroyed, it will delete its allocated memory.
when you allocate objects with new, put them in one of the smart pointer classes. shared_ptr is popular because it is the one that comes closest to looking like a garbage collector, but it isn't, and if you treat it as one and use it as an excuse to not think about memory management, then it won't work. Understand all the smart pointer classes (scoped_ptr and auto_ptr in C++03, or unique_ptr replacing both in C++11, shared_ptr and weak_ptr), and use the one that best fits your scenario.
think about ownership. Any time you allocate memory, you need to determine an owner, whose lifetime will control the lifetime of the memory allocation. Think about how long a lifetime your allocation needs, and have another object (whose lifetime is automatically managed, probably because it is on the stack) delete your memory when its destructor is called.
There's no quick and easy fix. The way to handle memory management in C++ is to avoid memory management. Delegate it out to your objects. If you're calling delete in your own code, you're doing it wrong. Often, you don't even need new, but if you do, assign ownership to a smart pointer immediately, and let that call delete for you.
As a rule of thumb, unless you're a library writer, you shouldn't write either new or delete. You should virtually never use raw pointers, and only when it is absolutely necessary, use smart pointers. Let your classes do the heavy lifting. Don't be afraid to put them on the stack, pass them by value, and let them handle their resources internally.
If you are new to C++ there are a few points with pointer management you need to understand and accept, regardless of whether you're using shared_ptr or not.
It is more than likely in your use of C++ you will need to use new and assign its return pointer to a class pointer that you have declared. I believe it is advisable to take the time to understand what is going on there, even if you write a small test program and watch the constructor execute in the debugger.
If you use classes like std::string, its constructors and destructor will do string pointer management for you, but I believe it is a good idea to understand what is going on behind the scenes in that class, if nothing more than reading the documentation.
As another example, you cannot use some classes, without a lot of detailed reading of the API, or you'll get problems. I once worked at company that used a commercial class package years ago. Someone had written a multi-threaded program using this package's thread pool class.
The documentation clearly said you can't just exit with outstanding threads. Yet I saw where the author of the program did not bother to synch up and shutdown all threads on exit, and wound up throwing exceptions, when their program exited. And this was on a commercial financial product.
My suggestion is don't look to get saved from performing pointer management. There are std classes like string that can reduce your headaches, but nothing will prevent problems other than your own diligence and testing.
As long as you understand how tr1 shared pointers work, yes.
Look at Boost C++ shared_ptr<> also - it might be more what you want.
I want to share data between threads, and have it automatically deleted when the last user is done with it. This seems to work, most of the time, using boost::interprocess::shared_ptr in a boost::fixed_managed_shared_memory segment: but not always.
So, is boost::interprocess::shared_ptr thread (and interprocess) -safe?
If I'm using my shared memory at a fixed address (I'm pretty certain this is going to be okay in my 64-bit (well, 48-bit) address space), is it possible to use a normal boost::shared_ptr (which are threadsafe) instead?
some clarification:
The pointer type I use is plain void*, (my shared memory is mapped to a fixed address).
The question of threadsafety is about the reference count -- i.e., whether copying/destroying shared pointers to the same thing in different processes at the same time is permitted. Not access to the same shared pointer in different threads, and not access to the pointee.
The reference count used in boost::interprocess:shared_ptr is implemented using an atomic counter defined in boost/interprocess/detail/atomic.hpp with the refcount logic mainly implemented by boost/interprocess/smart_ptr/detail/sp_counted_base_atomic.hpp. The intent is to have the refcount be handled in a thread (and interprocess) safe manner.
The atomic operation implementations differ depending on the specific target platform (Windows uses the Win32 Interlocked APIs, some platforms use various inline assembly, etc). It might be helpful to know what platform you're targeting. I suppose that you may be running into a bug in the refcount handling, though I wouldn't count on it.
I've restricted the above answer to the area you wanted specifically addressed:
The question of threadsafety is about the reference count -- i.e., whether copying/destroying shared pointers to the same thing in different processes at the same time is permitted. Not access to the same shared pointer in different threads, and not access to the pointee.
That said, I'd look at bugs introduced possibly by the items you mention above or by somehow creating 'independent' boost::interprocess:shared_ptr objects (where different shared_ptrs refer to the same object using different refcounts). This situation can be easy to have happen if you have some code that continues to use and/or pass around the raw object pointer.
boost::shared_ptr<T> is not interprocess safe, so whether it is multithread safe in this context is moot. (This statement assumes that BOOST_SP_DISABLE_THREADS has not been #defined for the program's operation.)
boost::interprocess::shared_ptr<T> is, in its very nature, designed to be cross-process safe, as well as multithread safe in its nature. When the last reference goes out of scope, the pointed-at object can be cleaned up. Obviously, this cleaning up happens within the bounds of the shared memory segment used for the object.
Since boost::shared_ptr<T> uses a lock-free counting mechanism at version 1.33.0 on many platforms, it is unlikely except by the remotest of chances that cross-process deletion of an object in a shared_memory segment would succeed, and does not appear to be supported functionality by the Boost maintainers.
Er. boost::shared_ptr is most definitely not thread-safe. At least not more thread-safe than e.g. std::vector. You may read a boost::shared_ptr from multiple threads, but as soon as any thread is writing a boost::shared_ptr it must synchronize with other writers and readers.
And no, you can not use it in shared memory, it was never designed to be. E.g. it uses a so called "shared count" object that stores the reference-count and the deleter, and that shared-count object is allocated by the shared_ptr code, so it will not reside in shared memory. Also the shared_ptr code (and meta data like vtables) might be at totally different addresses in different processes, so any virtual function call would also be a problem (and IIRC shared_ptr uses virtual functions internally - or at least function pointers, which leads to the same problem).
I don't know if boost::interprocess::shared_ptr is interprocess-safe, but I'm pretty sure it's not. Interprocess synchronization is pretty expensive. Having boost::interprocess::shared_ptr not do it makes it possible for the user to block accesses to shared data. That way the high synchronization cost only has to be paid once for multiple accesses in a row.
EDIT: I would expect that the usage pattern that Eamon Nerbonne refered to in his comment (which is thread-safe with boost::shared_ptr), is also OK with boost::interprocess::shared_ptr. Can't say for sure though.
"This seems to work, most of the time, using boost::interprocess::shared_ptr in a boost::fixed_managed_shared_memory segment: but not always."
If not always means that deletion don't work always:
Just use a semaphore with your thread safe container. This semaphore is not improve thread safety, but you can verify and even limit how many user use the data. If semaphore is 0, then no more user, safe delete the shared data.
If only one user there, this will be 1, so copy out the user-requested data, delete the shared container, then return with the copy.
Looking through the code in shared_ptr.hpp, and at the docs on the boost website, it would seem as though dereferencing a single instance may or may not be threadsafe depending on the second template parameter, which determines the internal pointer type to be used. Specifically,
"The internal pointer will be of the same pointer type as typename VoidAllocator::pointer type (that is, if typename VoidAllocator::pointer is offset_ptr, the internal pointer will be offset_ptr)."
And since dereferences merely return the result of get()/get_pointer() method of this class, it should probably depend entirely on that. Boost::shared_ptr will work if you want simultaneous read-only access. For write access from multiple threads, you might have to write your own wrapper modelled after offset_ptr.
As pgroke alludes to (not sure why the downvotes) the core question is whether you are accessing the same shared_ptr instance from different threads or processes.
shared_ptr (interprocess or not) does not support this scenario, and this will not be safe.
On the other hand, shared_ptr is designed to have multiple (thread-private, or protected from concurrent modification via some other mechanism) shared pointer instances point to the same object, and have different instances of these pointers to the same object be modified concurrently without issue.
::interprocess:: here is mostly a red-herring - it doesn't change the thread-safety of the pointer, just makes sure there are no internal pointers that refer to process-private memory, etc.
So which of the two cases is it?
I was recently interviewing for a C++ position, and I was asked how I guard against creating memory leaks. I know I didn't give a satisfactory answer to that question, so I'm throwing it to you guys. What are the best ways to guard against memory leaks?
Thanks!
What all the answers given so far boil down to is this: avoid having to call delete.
Any time the programmer has to call delete, you have a potential memory leak.
Instead, make the delete call happen automatically. C++ guarantees that local objects have their destructors called when they go out of scope. Use that guarantee to ensure your memory allocations are automatically deleted.
At its most general, this technique means that every memory allocation should be wrapped inside a simple class, whose constructor allocates the necessary memory, and destructor releases it.
Because this is such a commonly-used and widely applicable technique, smart pointer classes have been created that reduce the amount of boilerplate code. Rather than allocating memory, their constructors take a pointer to the memory allocation already made, and stores that. When the smart pointer goes out of scope, it is able to delete the allocation.
Of course, depending on usage, different semantics may be called for. Do you just need the simple case, where the allocation should last exactly as long as the wrapper class lives? Then use boost::scoped_ptr or, if you can't use boost, std::auto_ptr. Do you have an unknown number of objects referencing the allocation with no knowledge of how long each of them will live? Then the reference-counted boost::shared_ptr is a good solution.
But you don't have to use smart pointers. The standard library containers do the trick too. They internally allocate the memory required to store copies of the objects you put into them, and they release the memory again when they're deleted. So the user doesn't have to call either new or delete.
There are countless variations of this technique, changing whose responsibility it is to create the initial memory allocation, or when the deallocation should be performed.
But what they all have in common is the answer to your question: The RAII idiom: Resource Acquisition Is Initialization. Memory allocations are a kind of resource. Resources should be acquired when an object is initialized, and released by the object itslef, when it is destroyed.
Make the C++ scope and lifetime rules do your work for you. Never ever call delete outside of a RAII object, whether it is a container class, a smart pointer or some ad-hoc wrapper for a single allocation. Let the object handle the resource assigned to it.
If all delete calls happen automatically, there's no way you can forget them. And then there's no way you can leak memory.
Don't allocate memory on the heap if you don't need to. Most work can be done on the stack, so you should only do heap memory allocations when you absolutely need to.
If you need a heap-allocated object that is owned by a single other object then use std::auto_ptr.
Use standard containers, or containers from Boost instead of inventing your own.
If you have an object that is referred to by several other objects and is owned by no single one in particular then use either std::tr1::shared_ptr or std::tr1::weak_ptr -- whichever suits your use case.
If none of these things match your use case then maybe use delete. If you do end up having to manually manage memory then just use memory leak detection tools to make sure that you aren't leaking anything (and of course, just be careful). You shouldn't ever really get to this point though.
You'd do well to read up on RAII.
replace new with shared_ptr's. Basically RAII. make code exception safe. Use the stl everywhere possible. If you use reference counting pointers make sure that they don't form cycles. SCOPED_EXIT from boost is also very useful.
(Easy) Never ever let a raw pointer own a object (search your code for the regexp "\= *new". Use shared_ptr or scoped_ptr instead, or even better, use real variables instead of pointers as often as you can.
(Hard) Make sure you don't have any circular references, with shared_ptrs pointing to each other, use weak_ptr to break them.
Done!
Use all kind of smart pointers.
Use certain strategy for creation and deletion of objects, like who creates that is responsible for delete.
make sure that you understand exactly how an object will be deleted everytime you create one
make sure you understand who owns the pointer every time one is returned to you
make sure your error paths dispose of objects you have created appropriately
be paranoid about the above
In addition to the advice about RAII, remember to make your base class destructor virtual if there are any virtual functions.
To avoid memory leaks, what you must do is to have a clear and definite notion of who is responsible for deleting any dynamically allocated object.
C++ allows construction of objects on the stack (i.e. as kind-of local variables). This binds creation and destruction the the control flow: an objects is created when program execution reaches its declaration, and the object is destroyed when execution escapes the block in which that declaration was made. Whenever allocation need matches that pattern, then use it. This will save you much of the trouble.
For other usages, if you can define and document a clear notion of responsibility, then this may work fine. For instance, you have a method or a function which returns a pointer to a newly allocated object, and you document that the caller becomes responsible for ultimately deleting that instance. Clear documentation coupled with good programmer discipline (something which is not easily achieved !) can solve many remaining problems of memory management.
In some situations, including undisciplined programmers and complex data structures, you may have to resort to more advanced techniques, such as reference counting. Each object is awarded a "counter" which is the number of other variables which point to it. Whenever a piece of code decides to no longer point to the object, the counter is decreased. When the counter reaches zero, the object is deleted. Reference counting requires strict counter handling. This can be done with so-called "smart pointers": these are object which are functionally pointers, but which automatically adjust the counter upon their own creation and destruction.
Reference counting works quite good in many situations, but they cannot handle cyclic structures. So for the most complex situations, you have to resort to the heavy artillery, i.e. a garbage collector. The one I link to is the GC for C and C++ written by Hans Boehm, and it has been used in some rather big projects (e.g. Inkscape). The point of a garbage collector is to maintain a global view on the complete memory space, to know whether a given instance is still in use or not. This is the right tool when local-view tools, such as reference counting, are not enough. One could argue that, at that point, one should ask oneself whether C++ is the right language for the problem at hand. Garbage collection works best when the language is cooperative (this unlocks a host of optimizations which are not doable when the compiler is unaware of what happens with memory, as a typical C or C++ compiler).
Note that none of the techniques described above allows the programmer to stop thinking. Even a GC can suffer from memory leaks, because it uses reachability as an approximation of future usage (there are theoretical reasons which imply that it is not possible, in full generality, to accurately detect all objects which will not be used thereafter). You may still have to set some fields to NULL to inform the GC that you will no longer access an object through a given variable.
I start by reading the following: https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Bc%2B%2B%5D+memory+leak
A very good way is using Smart Pointers, the boost/tr1::shared_ptr. The memory will be free'd, once the (stack allocated) smart pointer goes out of scope.
You can use the utility.
If you work on Linux - use valgrid (it's free).
Use deleaker on Windows.
Smart pointers.
Memory management.
Override 'new' and 'delete' or use your own macros/templates.
On x86 you can regularly use Valgrind to check your code