Pointer to list element after removal - c++

Question

I have a list that stores objects.
list<MyObject> l;
I also have a method that returns a pointer to one of those objects, if it exists, or nullptr otherwise.
MyObject* get(int x) {
for (std::list<MyObject>::iterator it = l.begin(); it != l.end(); ++it) {
if (it->X == x) {
return &(*it);
}
}
return nullptr;
}
If I get() a pointer to an element, and while I am using it, it gets erased from another thread, the pointer becomes invalid, and weird things happen :)
What I wanted to know is if there is a way of returning some special kind of pointer in get(), so that if I call erase on an element and that element is still being referenced, its memory won't be released until the pointer to it goes out of scope.
I considered using a reference, but I need the possibility of returning nullptr on get, so I can check from the caller if the return was indeed a valid object.
Can someone suggest a better way of doing this, to avoid these memory issues?

Answer 1

As recommended you should use some smart_pointer to manage the shared ownership.
Some recomendations:
Use always as default, std::vector
If could use C++11 use the standard shared_ptr for shared ownership, if not, use boost version.
Use the algorithm header as much as you can (in this case find_if is the right one).
You should also try to use the algorithm for the search of the specific element. Here is some sample code:
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <memory>
struct MyObject {
int X;
MyObject(int x_value) : X(x_value) {}
};
using element_t = std::shared_ptr<MyObject>;
std::vector<element_t> l{
std::make_shared<MyObject>(3), std::make_shared<MyObject>(4),
std::make_shared<MyObject>(5), std::make_shared<MyObject>(6),
std::make_shared<MyObject>(7), std::make_shared<MyObject>(8)};
element_t get(int x) {
auto it = std::find_if(std::begin(l), std::end(l),
[x](const element_t& elem) { return elem->X == x; });
element_t found;
if (it != std::end(l)) {
found = *it;
}
return found;
}
int main() {
auto f1 = get(6);
if (f1) {
std::cout << "encontrado " << f1->X << std::endl;
} else {
std::cout << "6 no se encontro" << std::endl;
}
auto f2 = get(10);
if (f2) {
std::cout << "encontrado " << f2->X << std::endl;
} else {
std::cout << "10 no se encontro" << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}

Answer 2

Before using smart pointers, you might want to make sure you can spell out the reason why you can't (or don't want to) design a system where your objects have only one owner at a given time.
Smart pointers will avoid invalid data access, but they have all sorts of more or less hidden problems
they cost additional memory, force you to use them and their move semantics everywhere, and might easily become tricky, e.g. if you keep circular references or want an object to return a smart pointer to itself,
std:: containers become basically as useless as when you fill them with any kind of pointers (a vector of pointers is not a vector of objects),
you don't control where the deallocation takes place, so you might have your objects deleted by any task referencing them, possibly a time-critical one,
having no clear idea of who owns what is more often than not a recipe for disaster.
For instance, having one thread decide to delete objects while another grabs some from the same storage without any synchronization is very dangerous indeed. It is a bit as if one thread considered the object invalid while the other would consider it valid.
Does not strike me as the most robust design, but surely you have your reasons.
I think you could start by using unique_ptrs and see if that suits your needs, instead of jumping to shared_ptrs right away.