I'm using a smart pointer or a ComPtr. I'm using it with my directX application and I haven't seen other people call the release function in their code using the ComPtr. So does the smart pointer release the data that the smart pointer is referring to or do I need to do it manually? I don't know if this makes since so tell me if it doesn't and I will respond with better detail.
You should never call AddRef or Release on a ComPtr, and by default you can't. You have to use hacky patterns like comPtr.Get()->Release to do it, and you are mostly like going to cause problems.
The purpose of Microsoft::WRL::ComPtr is to make COM pointer cleanup automatic, both in normal code and when handling C++ exceptions. Making a copy of a ComPtr to another ComPtr automatically increase the ref-count, and each time a ComPtr variable goes out of scope it automatically decreases the ref-count. This greatly simplifies error-handling and cleanup which is why the code you are looking at isn't awash in calls to Release.
There are special methods Attach and Detach for 'transferring ownership' so that the ref-count is not changed, but they are for special use cases. There are also some tricks you can do with Swap as well that are very useful for robust coding.
If you want to explicitly 'release' a ComPtr variable, you can assign null to it or better yet use Reset.
Like with all smart-pointers you should think about the lifetime of your pointer to decide how to use it. If a function or class is going to 'own' the object pointed to, then use of a smart-pointer is the right way to do it. If the function is just going to work with the object and then return without any change in lifetime, the function should take a raw pointer instead with you using the Get method on the ComPtr when calling it. Otherwise your program wastes a lot of time needlessly increasing and decreasing the ref-count when the ownership of the object was not actually in question.
Another option is to pass the smart-pointer parameter as const ComPtr& which avoids the ref-count cycling, but it has the side-effect of forcing the caller to use ComPtr when the raw pointer is more agnostic to the caller's object lifetime policy and therefore more flexible.
I've got a write-up of how to use ComPtr on the DirectX Tool Kit wiki. You can also see MSDN.
For non-COM objects, std::unique_ptr is a great option. You can also use std::shared_ptr and std::weak_ptr but there are a lot of performance implications and edge-cases to worry about in the shared case, so sticking to ComPtr for COM and std::unique_ptr for heap-allocated objects with a single-owner is best practice.
You should not normally need to call AddRef or Release through the smart pointer - the entire point of ComPtr is that it calls those for you.
You might still need to call them if you're converting a smart pointer to a "manually managed" (normal) pointer.
Related
I want to use C++11 Smart Pointers in new projects, and encounter a problem. Many current projects still use raw pointers as parameters in their interface and have no interface for smart pointers, e.g. QMainWindow::setCentralWidget.
To keep type consistent, I have to pass the stored pointer from get() like this segment:
QMainWindow win;
std::shared_ptr<QWidget> scrollArea{ std::make_shared<QScrollArea>() };
// QScrollArea is a derived class of QWidget.
win.setCentralWidget(scrollArea.get());
But I can't make sure whether other methods in Qt execute operator delete on the stored pointer of scrollArea.
Will it cause memory leak or other problems if some methods in Qt do that?
I've checked the latest C++ Standard CD and found nothing on that. Seems it's an undefined behavior.
If doing this is an undefined behavior and dangerous, is there a safe way to use smart pointer(s) with the interface for raw pointer(s)?
There's no such way in the general case. For each "legacy" interface you want to use, you must read its documentation to see how it interacts with ownership (which is what std smart pointers encapsulate). A single object can only be managed by one ownership scheme.
With Qt in particular, it's definitely not safe to mix smart pointers and Qt management. Qt's parent/child relationship between QObjects includes ownership semantics (children are deleted when their parent is), so you cannot safely mix this with any other ownership scheme (such as std smart pointers).
Note that the Qt docs you link to explicitly state that "QMainWindow takes ownership of the widget pointer and deletes it at the appropriate time."
Unfortunately, if you are using an interface that uses raw pointers, you will need to consult the documentation to determine if the method does or does not take ownership of the provided pointer.
If the function takes ownership, then you must invoke .release() to transfer the ownership to the function. If the function does not take ownership, then you would pass the object with .get().
Will it cause memory leak or other problems if some methods in Qt do that?
It won't introduce a memory leak, since the memory is afterall released. However, since both QT and the shared_ptr would call delete on that memory, you would likely get some nice heap corruption (UB in general).
is there a safe way to use smart pointer(s) with the interface for raw pointer(s)?
Sure. Don't have unrelated entities manage the same memory. For that it is adavantegous to use unique_ptr instead of shared_ptr when possible. With unique_ptr you could call .release() to release the memory from the control of the smartpointer, thus giving you the ability to give control over to QT.
Of course you need check the documentation to see when you have to manage memory yourself and when QT will do it for you.
I don't think you should be doing any deleting with the QWidget.
http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qmainwindow.html#setCentralWidget
Note: QMainWindow takes ownership of the widget pointer and deletes it
at the appropriate time.
If you have to use smart pointers, you can use a weak_ptr which won't own or destroy it.
If you are using an interface which takes raw pointers, you already have the problem that you must know who is responsible for the lifetime of those pointers.
Adding shared_ptr into the mix doesn't change this.
If the interface will possibly delete the object, then you cannot use std::shared_ptr safetly. std::shared_ptr must control the lifetime of its objects and there's no way around this (without adding another level of indirection)
You can however get some use out of std::unique_ptr. If an interface will not delete a pointer, you can safetly pass in ptr.get(). If an interface takes ownership of the lifetime of that object, pass in ptr.release() and you give up controlling the lifetime yourself.
All in, you can get some usefulness out of smart pointers even with a legacy codebase, but you've got to be a little careful.
But I can't make sure whether other methods in Qt execute operator delete on the stored pointer of scrollArea.
If the widget has a parent, then the QT's memory management will release that object. In that case you must not use a smart pointer, because your application will try to release it twice, and that is an undefined behaviour.
I'm using ComPtr (Microsoft::WRL) to manage some DirectX11 resources.
How can I manually release it?
The "ReleaseAndGetAddressOf" method if I understand correctly, only frees the pointer and not the resource itself (which is returned), and I'm not sure about the "Reset" method.
The only alternatives I could think of are manually calling the pointer destructor, or after obtaining the raw pointer from "ReleaseAndGetAddressOf" calling "Release" on that, which I would like to avoid.
The source code for WRL is provided, have a look at include/winrt/wrl/client.h. The embedded COM pointer (ptr_ member) is released by the InternalRelease() function. Making any of the following a way to release the pointer suitable candidates:
the destructor. The reason to use ComPtr<>
assigning nullptr
using ReleaseAndGetAddressOf(), the long way around
calling Reset()
So assigning nullptr or calling Reset() are a good fit, take your pick. Or don't use it at all if you just want to manage the interface pointer yourself, it certainly isn't required to use ComPtr.
You can assign a null pointer.
More and more I hear, that I should use smart pointers instead of naked pointers, despite I have effective memory leak system implemented.
What is the correct programming approach on using smart pointers please? Should they really be used, even if I check memory leaks on allocated memory blocks? Is it still up to me? If I do not use them, can this be considered as programming weakness?
If the smart pointers(ex: std::auto_ptr) are strongly recommended, should I use them instead of every naked pointer?
You should use RAII to handle all resource allocations.
Smart pointers are just one common special case of that rule.
And smart pointers are more than just shared_ptr. There are different smart pointers with different ownership semantics. Use the one that suits your needs. (The main ones are scoped_ptr, shared_ptr, weak_ptr and auto_ptr/unique_ptr (prefer the latter where available). Depending on your compiler, they may be available in the standard library, as part of TR1, or not at all, in which case you can get them through the Boost libraries.
And yes, you should absolutely use these. It costs you nothing (if done correctly, you lose zero performance), and it gains you a lot (memory and other resources are automatically freed, and you don't have to remember to handle it manually, and your code using the resource gets shorter and more concise)
Note that not every pointer usage represents some kind of resource ownership, and so not all raw pointer usage is wrong. If you simply need to point to an object owned by someone else, a raw pointer is perfectly suitable. But if you own the object, then you should take proper ownership of it, either by giving the class itself RAII semantics, or by wrapping it in a smart pointer.
You can't just blindly substitute std::auto_ptr for every raw pointer. In particular, auto_ptr transfers ownership on assignment, which is great for some purposes but definitely not for others.
There is a real reason there are several varieties of smart pointers (e.g., shared_ptr, weak_ptr, auto_ptr/unique_ptr, etc.) Each fulfills a different purpose. One major weakness of a "raw" pointer is that it has so many different uses (and has that versatility largely because it does little or nothing to assist in any one purpose). Smart pointers tend to be more specialized, which means they can be more intelligent about doing one thing well, but also means you have to pick the right one for the job or it'll end up dong the wrong things entirely.
Smart pointers allows to define automatically the life-time of objects it refers to. That's the main thing to understand.
So, no, you shouldn't use smart pointers everywhere, only when you want to automate life-time of your objects instead of having, for example, an object managing those objects inside from birth to death. It's like any tool : it solves specific kind of problems, not all problems.
For each object, you should think about the life cycle it will go through, then choose one of the simplest correct and efficient solution. Sometimes it will be shared_ptr because you want the object to be used by several components and to be automatically destroyed once not used anymore. Sometimes you need the object only in the current scope/parent-object, so scoped_ptr might be more appropriate. Sometimes you need only one owner of the instance, so unique_ptr is appropriate. Maybe you'll find cases where you know an algorithm that might define/automate the lifetime of an object, so you'll write your own smart pointer for it.
For example of opposite case, using pools forbids you to use smart_ptr. Naked pointers might be a more welcome simple and efficient solution in this particular (but common in embedded software) case.
See this answer (from me) for more explainations : https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/57581/in-c-is-it-a-reflection-of-poor-software-design-if-objects-are-deleted-manuall/57611#57611
Should they really be used, even if I check memory leaks on allocated memory blocks?
YES
The whole purpose of smart pointers is, it help you implement RAII(SBRM), which basically lets the resource itself take the responsibility of its deallocation and the resource doesn't have to rely on you explicitly remembering to deallocate it.
If I do not use them, can this be considered as programming weakness?
NO,
It is not a weakness but a inconvenience or unnecessary hassle to explicitly manage the resources by yourself if you are not using Smart pointers(RAII). The purpose of smart pointers to implement RAII is to provide efficient and hassle free way of handling resources and you would just not be making use of it if you are not using it. It is highly recommended to use it purely for the numerous advantages it provides.
If the smart pointers(ex: std::auto_ptr)are strongly recommended, should I use them instead of every naked pointer?
YES
You should use smart pointers wherever possible because simply there is no drawback of using them and just numerous advantages to use them.
Don't use auto_ptr though because it is already deprecated!! There are various other smart pointers available that you can use depending on the requirement. You can refer the link above to know more about them.
It's a tricky question, and the fact that there is currently a mode to
use smart pointers everywhere doesn't make things any easier. Smart
pointers can help in certain situations, but you certainly can't just
use them everywhere, without thinking. There are many different types
of smart pointers, and you have to think about which one is appropriate
in every case; and even then, most of your pointers (at least in typical
applications in the domains I've worked in) should be raw pointers.
Regardless of the approach, several points are worth mentionning:
Don't use dynamic allocation unless you have to. In many
applications, the only things that need to be allocated dynamically
are objects with specific lifetimes, determined by the application
logic. Don't use dynamic allocation for objects with value semantics.
With regards to entity object, those which model something in the
application domain: these should be created and destructed according
to the program logic. Irregardless of whether there are pointers to
them or not. If their destruction causes a problem, then you have an
error in your program logic somewhere (not handling an event correctly,
etc.), and using smart pointers won't change anything.
A typical example of an entity object might be client connection in a
server, is created when the client connects, and destructed when the
client disconnects. In many such cases, the most appropriate management
will be a delete this, since it is the connection which will receive
the disconnection event. (Objects which hold pointers to such an object
will have to register with it, in order to be informed of its
destruction. But such pointers are purely for navigation, and shouldn't
be smart pointers.)
What you'll usually find when people try to use smart pointers
everywhere is that memory leaks; typical reference counters don't
handle cycles, and of course, typical applications are full of cycles: a
Connection will point to the Client which is connected to it, and
the Client will contain a list of Connection where it is connected.
And if the smart pointer is boost::shared_ptr, there's also a definite
risk of dangling pointers: it's far to easy to create two
boost::shared_ptr to the same address (which results in two counters
for the references).
If the smart pointers(ex: std::auto_ptr) are strongly recommended, should I use them instead of every naked pointer?
In my opinion, yes, you should it for every pointer that you own.
Here are my ideas on resource management in C++ (feel free to disagree):
Good resource management requires thinking in terms of ownership.
Resources should be managed managed by objects (RAII).
Usually single ownership is preferred over shared ownership.
Ideally the creator is also the owner of the object. (However, there are situations where ownership transfer is in order.)
This leads to the following practices:
Make boost::scoped_ptr the default choice for local and member variables. Do keep in mind that using scoped_ptr for member variables will make your class non-copyable. If you don't want this see next point.
Use boost::shared_ptr for containers or to enable shared ownership:
// Container of MyClass* pointers:
typedef boost::shared_ptr<MyClass> MyClassPtr;
std::vector<MyClassPtr> vec;
The std::auto_ptr (C++03) can be used for ownership transfer. For example as the return value of factory or clone methods:
// Factory method returns auto_ptr
std::auto_ptr<Button> button = Button::Create(...);
// Clone method returns auto_ptr
std::auto_ptr<MyClass> copy = obj->clone();
// Use release() to transfer the ownership to a scoped_ptr or shared_ptr
boost::scoped_ptr<MyClass> copy(obj->clone().release());
If you need to store a pointer that you don't own then you can use a raw pointer:
this->parent = inParentObject;
In certain situations a boost::weak_pointer is required. See the documentation for more information.
In general you should prefer smart pointers, but there are a couple of exceptions.
If you need to recast a pointer, for example to provide a const version, that becomes nearly impossible with smart pointers.
Smart pointers are used to control object lifetime. Often when you are passing a pointer to a function, the function will not affect the lifetime; the function does not try to delete the object, and it does not store a copy of the pointer. The calling code cannot delete the object until the function returns. In that case a dumb pointer is perfectly acceptable.
Yes. Assuming you have C++0x available to you, use unique_ptr or shared_ptr (as appropriate) to wrap all the raw pointers you new up. With the help of make_shared, shared_ptr is highly performant. If you don't need reference counting then unique_ptr will get you better perf. Both of them behave properly in collections and other circumstances where auto_ptr was a dumb pointer.
Using smart pointers (shared_ptr or otherwise) EVERYWHERE is a bad idea. It's good to use shared_ptr to manage the lifetime of objects/resources but it's not a good idea to pass them as parameters to functions etc. That increases the likelihood of circular references and other extremely hard to track bugs (Personal experience: Try figuring out who should not be holding onto a resource in 2 millions lines of code if every function invocation changes the reference count - you will end up thinking the guys who do this kind of thing are m***ns). Better to pass a raw pointer or a reference.
The situation is even worse when combined with lazy instantiation.
I would suggest that developers should know the lifecycle of the objects they write and use shared_ptr to control that (RAII) but not extend shared_ptr use beyond that.
I'm writing some code that makes (relatively simple) use of COM, calling AddRef() on some objects and Release()ing them later. Other than just checking the code really thoroughly, is there a way I can check to see if I'm leaking COM objects everywhere?
(I can't use reference counted IBlahBlahPtrs because I need to pass the objects to a set of APIs who don't know what a COM is, and so don't understand the whole "reference counting pointers" thingy - they pass the pointer around like a token.)
Thanks!
It is no different from checking for leaks in any C or C++ code. Use <crtdbg.h> to detect leaks, the MSDN library article is here. You'll get a leak report for the class factory if there were not enough IUnknown::Release() calls.
Reference counting interface pointers is a hard COM requirement, you cannot just shrug it off. If the client code doesn't do it then you'll have to take care of it yourself before you pass a pointer to that code. Knowing when the pointer is no longer in use is of course the trickier issue.
If you use the CrtDebug DEBUG_NEW to allocate your objects, you'll get an automatic dump of all leaked objects at exit time (basically, all memory that is not freed), along with the file name and line where the memory was allocated.
Based on our conversation in comments, I'd say you could do the following:
Use smart pointers (i.e., IBlahBlahPtr) to create and manage COM objects in your own code.
Maintain a collection of smart pointers representing your caller's references to the pointers that you've passed upwards. Every time you hand a new COM pointer over to your caller, put its smart pointer in the collection.
If your caller relinquishes a COM pointer somehow (by, say, passing you the COM pointer token in some kind of "release" function), then look up its smart pointer in the collection and remove it. If that smart pointer (representing the caller's now-defunct reference to the object) is the only remaining holder of a reference count on the object, then destruction will occur as desired.
If your caller passes you a COM pointer in a non-relinquishing way, you can wrap a new smart pointer object around the raw pointer value for the duration of the call, just so that your use of smart pointers within your own code is consistent. It's fine for multiple smart pointers to refer to the same COM object.
Various tools will check for you. BoundsChecker does. I think, but am not 100% sure, that AppVerifier does (it has the added benefit of being free).
In a C++ project that uses smart pointers, such as boost::shared_ptr, what is a good design philosophy regarding use of "this"?
Consider that:
It's dangerous to store the raw pointer contained in any smart pointer for later use. You've given up control of object deletion and trust the smart pointer to do it at the right time.
Non-static class members intrinsically use a this pointer. It's a raw pointer and that can't be changed.
If I ever store this in another variable or pass it to another function which could potentially store it for later or bind it in a callback, I'm creating bugs that are introduced when anyone decides to make a shared pointer to my class.
Given that, when is it ever appropriate for me to explicitly use a this pointer? Are there design paradigms that can prevent bugs related to this?
Wrong question
In a C++ project that uses smart pointers
The issue has nothing to do with smart pointers actually. It is only about ownership.
Smart pointers are just tools
They change nothing WRT the concept of ownership, esp. the need to have well-defined ownership in your program, the fact that ownership can be voluntarily transferred, but cannot be taken by a client.
You must understand that smart pointers (also locks and other RAII objects) represent a value and a relationship WRT this value at the same time. A shared_ptr is a reference to an object and establishes a relationship: the object must not be destroyed before this shared_ptr, and when this shared_ptr is destroyed, if it is the last one aliasing this object, the object must be destroyed immediately. (unique_ptr can be viewed as a special case of shared_ptr where there is zero aliasing by definition, so the unique_ptr is always the last one aliasing an object.)
Why you should use smart pointers
It is recommended to use smart pointers because they express a lot with only variables and functions declarations.
Smart pointers can only express a well-defined design, they don't take away the need to define ownership. In contrast, garbage collection takes away the need to define who is responsible for memory deallocation. (But do not take away the need to define who is responsible for other resources clean-up.)
Even in non-purely functional garbage collected languages, you need to make ownership clear: you don't want to overwrite the value of an object if other components still need the old value. This is notably true in Java, where the concept of ownership of mutable data structure is extremely important in threaded programs.
What about raw pointers?
The use of a raw pointer does not mean there is no ownership. It's just not described by a variable declaration. It can be described in comments, in your design documents, etc.
That's why many C++ programmers consider that using raw pointers instead of the adequate smart pointer is inferior: because it's less expressive (I have avoided the terms "good" and "bad" on purpose). I believe the Linux kernel would be more readable with a few C++ objects to express relationships.
You can implement a specific design with or without smart pointers. The implementation that uses smart pointer appropriately will be considered superior by many C++ programmers.
Your real question
In a C++ project, what is a good design philosophy regarding use of "this"?
That's awfully vague.
It's dangerous to store the raw pointer for later use.
Why do you need to a pointer for later use?
You've given up control of object deletion and trust the responsible component to do it at the right time.
Indeed, some component is responsible for the lifetime of the variable. You cannot take the responsibility: it has to be transferred.
If I ever store this in another variable or pass it to another function which could potentially store it for later or bind it in a callback, I'm creating bugs that are introduced when anyone decides to use my class.
Obviously, since the caller is not informed that the function will hide a pointer and use it later without the control of the caller, you are creating bugs.
The solution is obviously to either:
transfer responsibility to handle the lifetime of the object to the function
ensure that the pointer is only saved and used under the control of the caller
Only in the first case, you might end up with a smart pointer in the class implementation.
The source of your problem
I think that your problem is that you are trying hard to complicate matters using smart pointers. Smart pointers are tools to make things easier, not harder. If smart pointers complicate your specification, then rethink your spec in term of simpler things.
Don't try to introduce smart pointers as a solution before you have a problem.
Only introduce smart pointers to solve a specific well-defined problem. Because you don't describe a specific well-defined problem, it is not possible to discuss a specific solution (involving smart pointers or not).
While i don't have a general answer or some idiom, there is boost::enable_shared_from_this . It allows you to get a shared_ptr managing an object that is already managed by shared_ptr. Since in a member function you have no reference to those managing shared_ptr's, enable_shared_ptr does allow you to get a shared_ptr instance and pass that when you need to pass the this pointer.
But this won't solve the issue of passing this from within the constructor, since at that time, no shared_ptr is managing your object yet.
One example of correct use is return *this; in functions like operator++() and operator<<().
When you are using a smart pointer class, you are right that is dangerous to directly expose "this". There are some pointer classes related to boost::shared_ptr<T> that may be of use:
boost::enable_shared_from_this<T>
Provides the ability to have an object return a shared pointer to itself that uses the same reference counting data as an existing shared pointer to the object
boost::weak_ptr<T>
Works hand-in-hand with shared pointers, but do not hold a reference to the object. If all the shared pointers go away and the object is released, a weak pointer will be able to tell that the object no longer exists and will return you NULL instead of a pointer to invalid memory. You can use weak pointers to get shared pointers to a valid reference-counted object.
Neither of these is foolproof, of course, but they'll at least make your code more stable and secure while providing appropriate access and reference counting for your objects.
If you need to use this, just use it explicitly. Smart pointers wrap only pointers of the objects they own - either exclusivelly (unique_ptr) or in a shared manner (shared_ptr).
I personally like to use the this pointer when accessing member variables of the class. For example:
void foo::bar ()
{
this->some_var += 7;
}
It's just a harmless question of style. Some people like it, somepeople don't.
But using the this pointer for any other thing is likely to cause problems. If you really need to do fancy things with it, you should really reconsider your design. I once saw some code that, in the constructor of a class, it assigned the this pointer to another pointer stored somewhere else! That's just crazy, and I can't ever think of a reason to do that. The whole code was a huge mess, by the way.
Can you tell us what exactly do you want to do with the pointer?
Another option is using intrusive smart pointers, and taking care of reference counting within the object itself, not the pointers. This requires a bit more work, but is actually more efficient and easy to control.
Another reason to pass around this is if you want to keep a central registry of all of the objects. In the constructor, an object calls a static method of the registry with this. Its useful for various publish/subscribe mechanisms, or when you don't want the registry to need knowledge of what objects/classes are in the system.