void ClassName::LocalMethod( )
{
boost::shared_ptr<ClassName> classNamePtr( this );
//some operation with classNamePtr
return;
}
Here the object is getting released when it returns from LocalMethod() since classNamePtr is out of scope. Isn't the shared_ptr smart enough to know that the ClassName object is still in scope and not to delete it?
What does it mean to create a shared_ptr to an object? It means that the holder of the shared_ptr now assumes ownership over the object. Ownership meaning that the object will be deleted when he so desires. When the holder of the shared_ptr destroys its shared_ptr, that will cause the object to potentially be destroyed, assuming that there are no other shared_ptrs to that object.
When a shared_ptr is a member of a class, that means that the lifetime of the object pointed to by the shared_ptr is at least as long as the object that the shared_ptr is a member of. When a shared_ptr is on the stack, this means that the lifetime of the object that the shared_ptr is pointing to will be at least as long as the scope it was created in. Once the object falls off the stack, it may be deleted.
The only time you should ever take a pointer and wrap it into a shared_ptr is when you are allocating the object initially. Why? Because an object does not know whether it is in a shared_ptr or not. It can't know. This means that the person who creates the original shared_ptr now has the responsibility to pass it around to other people who need to share ownership of that memory. The only way shared ownership works is through the copy constructor of shared_ptr. For example:
shared_ptr<int> p1 = new int(12);
shared_ptr<int> p2 = p1.get();
shared_ptr<int> p3 = p1;
The copy constructor of shared_ptr creates shared ownership between p1 and p3. Note that p2 does not share ownership with p1. They both think they have ownership over the same memory, but that's not the same as sharing it. Because they both think that they have unique ownership of it.
Therefore, when the three pointers are destroyed, the following will happen. First, p3 will be destroyed. But since p3 and p1 share ownership of the integer, the integer will not be destroyed yet. Next, p2 will be destroyed. Since it thinks that it is the only holder of the integer, it will then destroy it.
At this point, p1 is pointing to deleted memory. When p1 is destroyed, it thinks that it is the only holder of the integer, so it will then destroy it. This is bad, since it was already destroyed.
Your problem is this. You are inside an instance of a class. And you need to call some functions of yours that take a shared_ptr. But all you have is this, which is a regular pointer. What do you do?
You're going to get some examples that suggest enable_shared_from_this. But consider a more relevant question: "why do those functions take a shared_ptr as an argument?"
The type of pointer a function takes is indicative of what that function does with its argument. If a function takes a shared_ptr, that means that it needs to own the pointer. It needs to take shared ownership of the memory. So, look at your code and ask whether those functions truly need to take ownership of the memory. Are they storing the shared_ptr somewhere long-term (ie: in an object), or are they just using them for the duration of the function call?
If it's the latter, then the functions should take a naked pointer, not a shared_ptr. That way, they cannot claim ownership. Your interface is then self-documenting: the pointer type explains ownership.
However, it is possible that you could be calling functions that truly do need to take shared ownership. Then you need to use enable_shared_from_this. First, your class needs to be derived from enable_shared_from_this. Then, in the function:
void ClassName::LocalMethod()
{
boost::shared_ptr<ClassName> classNamePtr(shared_from_this());
//some operation with classNamePtr
return;
}
Note that there is a cost here. enable_shared_from_this puts a boost::weak_ptr in the class. But there is no virtual overhead or somesuch; it doesn't make the class virtual. enable_shared_from_this is a template, so you have to declare it like this:
class ClassName : public boost::enable_shared_from_this<ClassName>
Isn't the shared_ptr smart enough to know that the ClassName object is
still in scope and not to delete it?
That's not how shared_ptr works. When you pass a pointer while constructing a shared_ptr, the shared_ptr will assume ownership of the pointee (in this case, *this). In other words, the shared_ptr assumes total control over the lifetime of the pointee by virtue of the fact that the shared_ptr now owns it. Because of this, the last shared_ptr owning the pointee will delete it.
If there will be no copies of classNamePtr outside of ClassName::LocalMethod(), you can pass a deleter that does nothing while constructing classNamePtr. Here's an example of a custom deleter being used to prevent a shared_ptr from deleting its pointee. Adapting the example to your situation:
struct null_deleter // Does nothing
{
void operator()(void const*) const {}
};
void ClassName::LocalMethod()
{
// Construct a shared_ptr to this, but make it so that it doesn't
// delete the pointee.
boost::shared_ptr<ClassName> classNamePtr(this, null_deleter());
// Some operation with classNamePtr
// The only shared_ptr here will go away as the stack unwinds,
// but because of the null deleter it won't delete this.
return;
}
You can also use enable_shared_from_this to obtain a shared_ptr from this. Note that the member function shared_from_this() only works if you have an existing shared_ptr already pointing to this.
class ClassName : public enable_shared_from_this<ClassName>
{
public:
void LocalMethod()
{
boost::shared_ptr<ClassName> classNamePtr = shared_from_this();
}
}
// ...
// This must have been declared somewhere...
shared_ptr<ClassName> p(new ClassName);
// before you call this:
p->LocalMethod();
This is the more appropriate, "official" method and it's much less hackish than the null deleter method.
It could also be that you don't actually need to create a shared_ptr in the first place. What goes into the section commented //some operation with classNamePtr? There might be an even better way than the first two ways.
Related
First time I am using smart pointers in my project. While using unique_ptr, I got some doubts regarding unique_ptr and raw pointer combination. And the way unique_ptr works internally.
Could some one please explain/answer based on my understanding as mentioned below, so that I can go ahead and use the smart pointers.
Below is the example:
class A
{
public:
void show()
{
cout<<"A::show()"<<endl;
}
};
int main()
{
unique_ptr<A> p1 (new A);
p1 -> show();
// returns the memory address of p1
cout << p1.get();
retrun 0;
}
From the above example,
When creating unique_ptr object "p1" we are providing raw pointer. Internally, unique_ptr constructor will initialize the unique_ptr with the raw pointer. Is my understanding correct?
As per the unique_ptr definition, "The pointer is exclusively owned by one object or a resource".
Based on the above statement, in our scenario, "raw pointer" is exclusively
owned by the unique_ptr object "p1". Am I correct?
And also after the statement, cout << p1.get(); (In the above sample program) as it is going out of scope, internally, the destructor of the unique_ptr called and it deletes the associated raw pointer. Is my understanding correct?
Finally, once deletes the associated raw pointer is the unique_ptr object will become empty?
When creating unique_ptr object "p1" we are providing raw pointer. Internally, unique_ptr constructor will initialize the unique_ptr with the raw pointer. Is my understanding correct?
Yes. The unique pointer will hold the same address.
As per the unique_ptr definition, "The pointer is exclusively owned by one object or a resource".
Based on the above statement, in our scenario, "raw pointer" is exclusively owned by the unique_ptr object "p1". Am I correct?
Yes. The only reference, the one that owns the resource and will free it, is the unique pointer. Note however that it's not the pointer that's owned, but the object it points at. The unique_ptr didn't take ownership of the raw pointer, it took ownership of the object (the resource) that is at the address the raw pointer provided.
And also after the statement, cout << p1.get(); (In the above sample program) as it is going out of scope, internally, the destructor of the unique_ptr called and it deletes the associated raw pointer. Is my understanding correct?
Yes. The unique ptr will cause the deletion of its internal raw pointer when it goes out of scope.
Finally, once deletes the associated raw pointer is the unique_ptr object will become empty?
Doesn't have to. Since the deletion happens when the unique_ptr object itself is being destroyed, there is no real need to "empty" it. It's about to go out of existence anyway, so its value is immaterial.
We have a function that returns a new allocated object as a output argument (ref to pointer).
MyFunc(MyObject*& obj)
{
obj = new MyObject();
}
Which is called like so:
Object* obj;
MyFunc(obj);
Internally the function does quite a bit and uses shared_ptr for memory management. When it is done, the object we would like to return is referenced by a shared_ptr. I am struggling on how to return our new allocated object as a regular pointer.
We would like to continue to use shared_ptr internally to reduce risks, but it does not seem to make sense to return a shared_ptr as the caller takes complete ownership over the returned value (the called function or object no longer needs or keeps a reference to the returned data) and we want them to have flexibility.
Does anyone have any suggestions for allowing us to use shared_ptr internally but have a regular pointer interface? Thanks
If for some reason you cannot/want not use std::unique_ptr or std::auto_ptr (for example if you need to have multiple owners internally during creation for some reason or your underlying methods require std::shared_ptr to be passed around), you can still make it work with std::shared_ptr by using custom deleter, as described here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/5995770/1274747
In the principle, after you're done before the return, you switch the deleter to not actually delete the instance (make the deleter "null") and then return by shared_ptr get(). Even after all shared_ptr objects are destroyed, the memory will not be deleted (as the nulled deleter will skip the deletion).
There is also a link in the comments not so well visible, which might be of your interest:
http://paste.ubuntu.com/23866812/
(not sure though if it would really work without the shared ownership of the switch in all cases, would need to test)
EDIT
As expected, with the linked simple disarmable deleter from the pastebin you need to be careful, because the deleter is actually copied for storing in std::shared_ptr.
But you can still make it work by using std::ref:
MyFunc(MyObject*& obj)
{
DisarmableDelete<MyObject> deleter;
std::shared_ptr<MyObject> ptr(new MyObject(), std::ref(deleter));
// do what is necessary to setup the object - protected by deleter
// ...
// disarm before return
deleter._armed = false;
obj = ptr.get();
// deleter disarmed - object not freed
}
And just for completeness (and to avoid a potential future broken link), here is the implementation of DisarmableDelete from http://paste.ubuntu.com/23866812/.
template <typename T, typename Deleter = typename std::default_delete<T> >
struct DisarmableDelete : private Deleter {
void operator()(T* ptr) { if(_armed) Deleter::operator()(ptr); }
bool _armed = true;
};
It depends on who "owns" the pointer, once it has been exposed to the 'outside world.' Ownership essentially boils down to: "who is responsible for freeing this memory, later?"
It can be answered with a simple question: when MyFunc is called, is the caller responsible for deleting the pointer when it's done?
If so, then MyFunc needs to 'release' the ownership, otherwise the shared_ptr will automatically delete the pointer, when it goes out of scope. This actually can't be done, using shared_ptr. You need to use a unique_ptr instead, and call unique_ptr::release().
If not - if MyFunc will simply use the resulting pointer and forget about it without delete-ing it - then you can simply return the 'raw' pointer using shared_ptr::get(). You must be careful, because this implies that the shared_ptr still exists elsewhere in your code.
I can see four alternatives, as highlighted below. They are all horrible, and short of switching your ownership to std::unique_ptr<T> and returning via obj = ptr.release(); I can only offer a hack where the argument is assigned to the pointer upon destruction, but you still need to catch the exception and test whether the pointer was assigned.
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <exception>
struct foo {
void bar() const { std::cout << this << " foo::bar()\n"; }
~foo() { std::cout << this << " deleted\n"; }
};
void f1(foo*& obj) {
obj = new foo;
// do stuff... if an exception is thrown before we return we are
// left with a memory leak
}
void f2(foo*& obj) {
auto holder = std::make_shared<foo>();
// do stuff.. if an exception is thrown the pointer will be
// correclty deleted.
obj = holder.get(); // awesome, I have a raw pointer!
} // oops, the destructor gets called because holder went out of
// scope... my pointer points to a deleted object.
void f3(foo*& obj) {
auto holder = std::make_unique<foo>();
// do stuff.. if an exception is thrown the pointer will be
// correclty deleted.
obj = holder.release(); // awesome, I have a raw pointer!
} // no problem whem holder goes out of scope because it does not own the pointer
void f4(foo*& obj) {
// a super-weird hack that assigns obj upon deletion
std::shared_ptr<foo> holder(new foo, [&obj](foo*& p){ obj = p; });
throw std::exception();
} // no problem whem holder goes out of scope because it does not own
// the pointer... but if an execption is throw we need to delete obj
int main() {
foo* p1;
f1(p1);
p1->bar();
foo* p2;
f2(p2);
// p2->bar(); // error
foo* p3;
f3(p3);
p3->bar();
foo* p4;
try {
f4(p4);
} catch(...) {
std::cout << "caught an exception... test whether p4 was assigned it\n";
}
p4->bar(); // I still need to delete this thing
}
The point of shared_ptr is to express shared ownership.
Anything that does not share in the ownership of an object -- that doesn't have the right to make an object lifetime last longer, and the object lifetime is the union of the shared owners request for object lifetime -- should not use a shared_ptr.
Here, you have a shared_ptr and you are going to return it. At that point, you are violating the assumptions of shared_ptr; anyone who kept a shared_ptr copy expects that its content can last as long as it requests.
Meanwhile, the calling code thinks it owns the MyObject* raw pointer you passed it.
This is an example of misuse of shared_ptr.
Saying "we have memory management issues, use shared_ptr" doesn't fix memory management issues. Proper use of shared_ptr requires care and design, and the design must be that when the end of the lifetime of the object in question is shared by 2 or more pieces of data and/or code.
The internal code, if it does not own the pointer, should use either something like an observer_ptr<T> or a raw T* (the first to make it clear it doesn't own the object).
Ownership should be explicit, and in a unique_ptr. It can then call .release() to pass ownership to a raw pointer if required; in practice, I would change your signature to take a unique_ptr&, or have it return a unique_ptr.
The caller would then call .release() when they want to use some other object lifetime management system, or that object lifetime management system should consume unique_ptrs (thus being extremely clear about taking ownership of things).
Use a non-hack solution.
Such as a std::shared_ptr<std::unique_ptr<T>>. In this case, you have shared ownership of a unique ownership.
The unique_ptr can have its ownership taken from it (via .release()). When it does so, all of the shared_ptrs that still exist will have their unique_ptr also be cleared.
This places the shared unique ownership front and center, instead of hacking a non-deleter into a shared_ptr and having dangling shared_ptrs that think they have ownership over data but do not.
The best approach is to use internally unique_ptr and call its .release() method before returning the raw pointer.
If you are stuck to use shared_ptr internally, an option is to create it specifying a custom, "noop" deleter, that just does nothing when shared_ptr is destroyed (instead of calling delete on the owned pointer). The get the raw pointer from shared_ptr as usual (.get() method).
An example of such a deleter can be found in the Boost library (null_deleter).
But please note that doing this effectively "disable" the usefulness of having a shared_ptr at all...
If your managing the lifespan of the allocated object internally with std::shared_ptr, and are returning a raw pointer for access and don't want this pointer to affect the ref count, you can return the raw pointer by calling shared_ptr.get().
It can be problematic to return smart pointers if your using a tool like Swig to generate wrappers for other languages.
Preamble
In C++11 there is std::shared_ptr + std::weak_ptr combo. Despite being very useful, it has a nasty issue: you cannot easily construct shared_ptr from a raw pointer. As a result of this flaw, such smart pointers usually become "viral": people start to completely avoid raw pointers and references, and use exclusively shared_ptr and weak_ptr smart pointers all over the code. Because there is no way to pass a raw reference into a function expecting a smart pointer.
On the other hand, there is boost::intrusive_ptr. It is equivalent to std::shared_ptr and can easily be constructed from raw pointer, because reference counter is contained within the object. Unfortunately, there is no weak_ptr companion to it, so there is no way to have non-owning references which you could check for being invalid. In fact, some believe that weak companion for intrusive_ptr is impossible.
Now, there is std::enable_shared_from_this, which embeds a weak_ptr directly into your class, so that you could construct shared_ptr from pointer to object. But there is small limitation (at least one shared_ptr must exist), and it still does not allow the obvious syntax: std::shared_ptr(pObject).
Also, there is a std::make_shared, which allocates reference counters and the user's object in a single memory chunk. This is very close to the concept of intrusive_ptr, but the user's object can be destroyed independently of the reference counting block. Also, this concept has an inevitable drawback: the whole memory block (which can be large) is deallocated only when all weak_ptr-s are gone.
Question
The main question is: how to create a pair of shared_ptr/weak_ptr, which would have the benefits of both std::shared_ptr/std::weak_ptr and boost::intrusive_ptr?
In particular:
shared_ptr models shared ownership over the object, i.e. the object is destroyed exactly when the last shared_ptr pointing to it is destroyed.
weak_ptr does not model ownership over the object, and it can be used to solve the circular dependency problem.
weak_ptr can be checked for being valid: it is valid when there exists a shared_ptr pointing to the object.
shared_ptr can be constructed from a valid weak_ptr.
weak_ptr can be constructed from a valid raw pointer to the object. Raw pointer is valid if there exists at least one weak_ptr still pointing to that object. Constructing weak_ptr from invalid pointer results in undefined behavior.
The whole smart pointer system should be cast-friendly, like the abovementioned existing systems.
It is OK for being intrusive, i.e. asking the user to inherit once from given base class. Holding the object's memory when the object is already destroyed is also OK. Thread safety is very good to have (unless being too inefficient), but solutions without it are also interesting. It is OK to allocate several chunks of memory per object, though having one memory chunk per object is preferred.
Points 1-4 and 6 are already modelled by shared_ptr/weak_ptr.
Point 5 makes no sense. If lifetime is shared, then there is no valid object if a weak_ptr exists but a shared_ptr does not. Any raw pointer would be an invalid pointer. The lifetime of the object has ended. The object is no more.
A weak_ptr does not keep the object alive, it keeps the control block alive. A shared_ptr keeps both the control block and the controlled object alive.
If you don't want to "waste" memory by combining the control block with the controlled object, don't call make_shared.
If you don't want shared_ptr<X> to be passed virally into functions, don't pass it. Pass a reference or const reference to the X. You only need to mention shared_ptr in the argument list if you intend on managing the lifetime in the function. If you simply want to perform operations on what the shared_ptr is pointing at, pass *p or *p.get() and accept a [const] reference.
Override new on the object to allocate a control block before the instance of the object.
This is pseudo-intrusive. Conversion to from raw pointer is possible, because of the known offset. The object can be destroyed without a problem.
The reference counting block holds a strong and weak count, and a function object to destroy the object.
Downside: it doesn't work polymorphically very well.
Imagine we have:
struct A {int x;};
struct B {int y;};
struct C:B,A {int z;};
then we allocate a C this way.
C* c = new C{};
and store it in an A*:
A* a = c;
We then pass this to a smart-pointer-to-A. It expects the control block to be immediately before the address a points to, but because B exists before A in the inheritance graph of C, there is an instance of B there instead.
That seems less than ideal.
So we cheat. We again replace new. But it instead registers the pointer value and size with a registry somewhere. There we store the weak/strong pointer counts (etc).
We rely on a linear address space and class layout. When we have a pointer p, we simply look for whose range of address it is in. Then we know the strong/weak counts.
This one has horrible performance in general, especially multi-threaded, and relies upon undefined behavior (pointer comparisons for pointers not pointing to the same object, or less order in such cases).
In theory, it is possible to implement intrusive version of shared_ptr and weak_ptr, but it might be unsafe due to C++ language limitations.
Two reference counters (strong and weak) are stored in the base class RefCounters of the managed object. Any smart pointer (either shared or weak) contains a single pointer to the managed object. Shared pointers own the object itself, and shared + weak pointers together own the memory block of the object. So when the last shared pointer is gone, object is destroyed, but its memory block remains alive as long as there is at least one weak pointer to it. Casting pointers works as expected, given that all the involved types are still inherited from the RefCounted class.
Unfortunately, in C++ it is usually forbidden to work with members of object after the object is destroyed, although most implementations should allow doing that without problems. More details about legibility of the approach can be found in this question.
Here is the base class required for the smart pointers to work:
struct RefCounters {
size_t strong_cnt;
size_t weak_cnt;
};
struct RefCounted : public RefCounters {
virtual ~RefCounted() {}
};
Here is a part of shared pointer definition (shows how object is destroyed and memory chunk is deallocated):
template<class T> class SharedPtr {
static_assert(std::is_base_of<RefCounted, T>::value);
T *ptr;
RefCounters *Counter() const {
RefCounters *base = ptr;
return base;
}
void DestroyObject() {
ptr->~T();
}
void DeallocateMemory() {
RefCounted *base = ptr;
operator delete(base);
}
public:
~SharedPtr() {
if (ptr) {
if (--Counter()->strong_cnt == 0) {
DestroyObject();
if (Counter()->weak_cnt == 0)
DeallocateMemory();
}
}
}
...
};
Full code with sample is available here.
I have a std::vector of unique_ptrs and I'm happy to have them manage the life cycle of those objects.
However I require storing other pointers to those objects for convenience. I know that once unique_ptr removes something, those other pointers will dangle. But I'm more concerned about the validity of those pointers before and after unique_ptr gets them.
I do not always create via new within the unique_ptr itself, for example I might pass new Something as a function parameter in which case the unique_ptr is using move on that pointer into itself inside the function.
But I might also new Something before I pass it into a function that then assigned it a unique_ptr.
Once an object is assigned to a unique_ptr I can get a pointer to it via get(). But can I always assume that this get() pointer points to the same place as the pointer initially obtained via new if the original pointer was created before the assignment to a unique_ptr ?
My assumption is Yes, and that even if the vector resizes and reallocates, the unique_ptr as well as any other pointers to the objects in memory remain the same.
Yes, a std::unique_ptr<T> holds a pointer to T, and it will not alter the value between initialization and later retrieval with get()
A common use of a unique_ptr is to assign one "parent" object ownership of a dynamically-allocated "subobject", in a similiar same way as:
struct A
{
B b;
}
int main()
{
A a = ...;
B* p = &a.b;
}
In the above b is a true subobject of A.
Compare this to:
struct A
{
unique_ptr<B> b = new B(...);
}
int main()
{
A a = ...;
B* p = a.b.get();
}
In the above A and (*b) have a similar relationship to the first example, except here the B object is allocated on the heap. In both cases the destructor of A will destroy the "subobject". This "on heap" subobject structure may be preferable in some cases, for example because B is a polymorphic base type, or to make B an optional/nullable subobject of A.
The advantage of using unique_ptr over a raw pointer to manage this ownership relationship is that it will automatically destroy it in As destructor, and it will automatically move construct and move assign it as part of A.
As usual, in both cases, you must be careful that the lifetime of any raw pointers to the subobject are enclosed by the lifetime of the owning object.
Yes, you are correct, because unique_ptr does not copy the object; therefore, it has to point to the same address. However, once you give a pointer to a unique_ptr to own, you should not use that raw pointer any more, because the unique_ptr could be destroyed and deallocate the memory, and turn your raw pointer into a dangling pointer. Perhaps shared_ptr would be better for your situation.
So I have a shared_ptr in my Main class, and I'd like some other object (a singleton class) to have access to what the shared_ptr is pointing to.
In pseudo code...
mySingletonInstance->somePointer = myShared_ptr;
How do I do that?
If the singleton should participate in shared management of the object that is held by shared_ptr then it's somePointer could be simply a copy of that shared_ptr. Otherwise use a weak_ptr.
If you don't want mySingletonInstance->somePointer to respect the ownership semantics of shared_ptr, then:
class MySingletonClass {
SomeType* somePointer;
}
shared_ptr<SomeType> myShared_ptr;
...
// Then either of the following lines:
mySingletonInstance->somePointer = mySharedPtr.get();
mySingletonInstance->somePointer = &*mySharedPtr;
But beware -- your somePointer might hold a pointer to the object even after it has been deleted.