I have objects which create other child objects within their constructors, passing 'this' so the child can save a pointer back to its parent. I use boost::shared_ptr extensively in my programming as a safer alternative to std::auto_ptr or raw pointers. So the child would have code such as shared_ptr<Parent>, and boost provides the shared_from_this() method which the parent can give to the child.
My problem is that shared_from_this() cannot be used in a constructor, which isn't really a crime because 'this' should not be used in a constructor anyways unless you know what you're doing and don't mind the limitations.
Google's C++ Style Guide states that constructors should merely set member variables to their initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit Init() method. This solves the 'this-in-constructor' problem as well as a few others as well.
What bothers me is that people using your code now must remember to call Init() every time they construct one of your objects. The only way I can think of to enforce this is by having an assertion that Init() has already been called at the top of every member function, but this is tedious to write and cumbersome to execute.
Are there any idioms out there that solve this problem at any step along the way?
Use a factory method to 2-phase construct & initialize your class, and then make the ctor & Init() function private. Then there's no way to create your object incorrectly. Just remember to keep the destructor public and to use a smart pointer:
#include <memory>
class BigObject
{
public:
static std::tr1::shared_ptr<BigObject> Create(int someParam)
{
std::tr1::shared_ptr<BigObject> ret(new BigObject(someParam));
ret->Init();
return ret;
}
private:
bool Init()
{
// do something to init
return true;
}
BigObject(int para)
{
}
BigObject() {}
};
int main()
{
std::tr1::shared_ptr<BigObject> obj = BigObject::Create(42);
return 0;
}
EDIT:
If you want to object to live on the stack, you can use a variant of the above pattern. As written this will create a temporary and use the copy ctor:
#include <memory>
class StackObject
{
public:
StackObject(const StackObject& rhs)
: n_(rhs.n_)
{
}
static StackObject Create(int val)
{
StackObject ret(val);
ret.Init();
return ret;
}
private:
int n_;
StackObject(int n = 0) : n_(n) {};
bool Init() { return true; }
};
int main()
{
StackObject sObj = StackObject::Create(42);
return 0;
}
Google's C++ programming guidelines have been criticized here and elsewhere again and again. And rightly so.
I use two-phase initialization only ever if it's hidden behind a wrapping class. If manually calling initialization functions would work, we'd still be programming in C and C++ with its constructors would never have been invented.
Depending on the situation, this may be a case where shared pointers don't add anything. They should be used anytime lifetime management is an issue. If the child objects lifetime is guaranteed to be shorter than that of the parent, I don't see a problem with using raw pointers. For instance, if the parent creates and deletes the child objects (and no one else does), there is no question over who should delete the child objects.
KeithB has a really good point that I would like to extend (in a sense that is not related to the question, but that will not fit in a comment):
In the specific case of the relation of an object with its subobjects the lifetimes are guaranteed: the parent object will always outlive the child object. In this case the child (member) object does not share the ownership of the parent (containing) object, and a shared_ptr should not be used. It should not be used for semantic reasons (no shared ownership at all) nor for practical reasons: you can introduce all sorts of problems: memory leaks and incorrect deletions.
To ease discussion I will use P to refer to the parent object and C to refer to the child or contained object.
If P lifetime is externally handled with a shared_ptr, then adding another shared_ptr in C to refer to P will have the effect of creating a cycle. Once you have a cycle in memory managed by reference counting you most probably have a memory leak: when the last external shared_ptr that refers to P goes out of scope, the pointer in C is still alive, so the reference count for P does not reach 0 and the object is not released, even if it is no longer accessible.
If P is handled by a different pointer then when the pointer gets deleted it will call the P destructor, that will cascade into calling the C destructor. The reference count for P in the shared_ptr that C has will reach 0 and it will trigger a double deletion.
If P has automatic storage duration, when it's destructor gets called (the object goes out of scope or the containing object destructor is called) then the shared_ptr will trigger the deletion of a block of memory that was not new-ed.
The common solution is breaking cycles with weak_ptrs, so that the child object would not keep a shared_ptr to the parent, but rather a weak_ptr. At this stage the problem is the same: to create a weak_ptr the object must already be managed by a shared_ptr, which during construction cannot happen.
Consider using either a raw pointer (handling ownership of a resource through a pointer is unsafe, but here ownership is handled externally so that is not an issue) or even a reference (which also is telling other programmers that you trust the referred object P to outlive the referring object C)
A object that requires complex construction sounds like a job for a factory.
Define an interface or an abstract class, one that cannot be constructed, plus a free-function that, possibly with parameters, returns a pointer to the interface, but behinds the scenes takes care of the complexity.
You have to think of design in terms of what the end user of your class has to do.
Do you really need to use the shared_ptr in this case? Can the child just have a pointer? After all, it's the child object, so it's owned by the parent, so couldn't it just have a normal pointer to it's parent?
Related
I have some code that currently uses raw pointers, and I want to change to smart pointers. This helps cleanup the code in various ways. Anyway, I have factory methods that return objects and its the caller's responsibility to manager them. Ownership isn't shared and so I figure unique_ptr would be suitable. The objects I return generally all derive from a single base class, Object.
For example,
class Object { ... };
class Number : public Object { ... };
class String : public Object { ... };
std::unique_ptr<Number> State::NewNumber(double value)
{
return std::unique_ptr<Number>(new Number(this, value));
}
std::unique_ptr<String> State::NewString(const char* value)
{
return std::unique_ptr<String>(new String(this, value));
}
The objects returned quite often need to be passed to another function, which operates on objects of type Object (the base class). Without any smart pointers the code is like this.
void Push(const Object* object) { ... } // push simply pushes the value contained by object onto a stack, which makes a copy of the value
Number* number = NewNumber(5);
Push(number);
When converting this code to use unique_ptrs I've run into issues with polymorphism. Initially I decided to simply change the definition of Push to use unique_ptrs too, but this generates compile errors when trying to use derived types. I could allocate objects as the base type, like
std::unique_ptr<Object> number = NewNumber(5);
and pass those to Push - which of course works. However I often need to call methods on the derived type. In the end I decided to make Push operate on a pointer to the object stored by the unique_ptr.
void Push(const Object* object) { ... }
std::unique_ptr<Object> number = NewNumber(5);
Push(number.get());
Now, to the reason for posting. I'm wanting to know if this is the normal way to solve the problem I had? Is it better to have Push operate on the unique_ptr vs the object itself? If so how does one solve the polymorphism issues? I would assume that simply casting the ptrs wouldn't work. Is it common to need to get the underlying pointer from a smart pointer?
Thanks, sorry if the question isn't clear (just let me know).
edit: I think my Push function was a bit ambiguous. It makes a copy of the underlying value and doesn't actually modify, nor store, the input object.
Initially I decided to simply change the definition of Push to use
unique_ptrs too, but this generates compile errors when trying to use
derived types.
You likely did not correctly deal with uniqueness.
void push(std::unique_ptr<int>);
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<int> i;
push(i); // Illegal: tries to copy i.
}
If this compiled, it would trivially break the invariant of unique_ptr, that only one unique_ptr owns an object, because both i and the local argument in push would own that int, so it is illegal. unique_ptr is move only, it's not copyable. It has nothing to do with derived to base conversion, which unique_ptr handles completely correctly.
If push owns the object, then use std::move to move it there. If it doesn't, then use a raw pointer or reference, because that's what you use for a non-owning alias.
Well, if your functions operate on the (pointed to) object itself and don't need its address, neither take any ownership, and, as I guess, always need a valid object (fail when passed a nullptr), why do they take pointers at all?
Do it properly and make them take references:
void Push(const Object& object) { ... }
Then the calling code looks exactly the same for raw and smart pointers:
auto number = NewNumber(5);
Push(*number);
EDIT: But of course no matter if using references or pointers, don't make Push take a std::unique_ptr if it doesn't take ownership of the passed object (which would make it steal the ownership from the passed pointer). Or in general don't use owning pointers when the pointed to object is not to be owned, std::shared_ptr isn't anything different in this regard and is as worse a choice as a std::unique_ptr for Push's parameter if there is no ownership to be taken by Push.
If Push does not take owenrship, it should probably take reference instead of pointer. And most probably a const one. So you'll have
Push(*number);
Now that's obviously only valid if Push isn't going to keep the pointer anywhere past it's return. If it does I suspect you should try to rethink the ownership first.
Here's a polymorphism example using unique pointer:
vector<unique_ptr<ICreature>> creatures;
creatures.emplace_back(new Human);
creatures.emplace_back(new Fish);
unique_ptr<vector<string>> pLog(new vector<string>());
for each (auto& creature in creatures)
{
auto state = creature->Move(*pLog);
}
I have a list of smart pointers where each pointer points to a separate Entity class.
std::list<std::unique_ptr<Entity>> m_entities;
I would like the constructor to handle the assigning of each pointer to a std::list class as it is "automatically" handled by the code on class instantiation. However, if this design is bad then I would welcome a better alternative as it only makes sense to me coming from a C# background.
Entity::Entity(Game &game)
: m_game(game),
m_id(m_game.g_idGenerator->generateNewID())
{
m_game.m_entities.push_back(std::unique_ptr<Entity>(this));
}
The main problem I have encountered with this method is that the Entity class' lifetime is unmanaged by the Entity class.
For example if I allocate an Entity class on the stack it will call the Entity destructor after leaving the method in which it was allocated and the pointer will no longer be valid.
I therefore considered the alternative of creating a smart pointer, allocating the Entity class to the heap and then explicitly adding the pointer to the list.
std::unique_ptr<Entity> b(new Entity(*this));
m_entities.push_back(b); // ERROR
This produces the following error
error C2664: 'void std::list<_Ty>::push_back(_Ty &&)' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'std::unique_ptr<_Ty>' to 'std::unique_ptr<_Ty> &&'
What would be considered the best approach for allocating each pointer to the list and is a constructor based version possible?
I'm currently thinking that it is the list of smart pointers that should handle the lifetime for each Entity class and that assigning pointers in a constructor is not a good design choice. In that case I should probably create a CreateEntity method that adds the pointer to list rather than let the constructor handle it. Is this better?
I considered what type of smart pointer would be appropriate for this operation after reading through questions found here, here and here (offsite). It is difficult to get an exact answer based on what I've read so far though as they all offer somewhat conflicting advice.
Using constructor this way is definitely not good idea because constructor has no information about how object is created and controlled - on the stack, statically, dynamically by some smart pointer, dynamically by dumb pointer?
To solve this problem you could use static factory method to create Entity instances:
class Entity
{
public:
// Variant with unique ownership
static void CreateGameEntity(Game& game)
{
std::unique_ptr<Entity> p(new Entity());
game.m_entities.push_back(std::move(p));
}
// OR (you cannot use both)
// Variant with shared ownership
static std::shared_ptr<Entity> CreateGameEntity(Game& game)
{
std::shared_ptr<Entity> p(new Entity());
game.m_entities.push_back(p);
return p;
}
private:
// Declare ctors private to avoid possibility to create Entity instances
// without CreateGameEntity() method, e.g. on stack.
Entity();
Entity(const Entity&);
};
Which smart pointer to use? Well, this depends on your design. If Game object solely owns Entity instances and completely manages their lifetime, using std::unique_ptr is OK. If you need some kind of shared ownership (e.g. you have several Game objects that can share same Entity objects) you shall use std::shared_ptr.
Also in case of unique ownership you may use Boost Pointer Container library. It contains specialized owning pointer containers like ptr_vector, ptr_list, ptr_map etc.
I won't comment on your design questions, but to fix your error, change your code to either:
m_entities.push_back(std::unique_ptr<Boundary>(new Boundary(*this, body)));
or:
std::unique_ptr<Boundary> b(new Boundary(*this, body));
m_entities.push_back(std::move(b));
The reason is that b in your code is an lvalue, but std::unique_ptr<> is a move-only type (i.e. has no copy constructor).
The problem in your code is that you try to move a std::unique_ptr<T> from an l-value. The instantiations of std::unique_ptr<T> are non-copyable and are only movable. To move from an l-value you need to explicitly do so:
this->m_entities.push_back(std::move(b));
The call to std::move() won't really move anything but it does yield a type which indicates to the compiler that the object can be moved.
To address the issue with the stack-created instance, you could simply add a parameter to the constructor that tells it to not add the new instance to the list, eg:
Entity::Entity(Game &game, bool AddToList = true)
: m_game(game),
m_id(m_game.g_idGenerator->generateNewID())
{
if (AddToList) m_game.m_entities.push_back(this);
}
.
{
...
Entity e(game, false);
...
}
Another option might be to add a destructor to Entity that removes it from the list if it is still present, but that might get a little complex trying to avoid conflicts between direct Entity destructions and unique_ptr destructions.
I have a class that is responsible for creating and initializing a number of large objects, as the objects are all of the same Type and I don't want to repeat the same initializing code for all the objects, I call an Init method for each object, for example:
InitObject(objMember);
void Test::InitObject(LargeObject * obj)
{
obj = new LargeObject;
obj->Load();
obj->SetSomeProperty(false);
}
Once this has been done, from a public method I call a set of methods to get a pointer to each of the objects:
//public
LargeObject * Test::GetObject()
{
return objMember;
}
The issue is that the objects are losing scope, when InitObject is called, the objects are correctly constructed and populated, but when I call GetObject, it has lost everything.
I'm probably missing something trivial, but I can't see why it's going out of scope.
It is trivial, yes. You're initializing a copy of the original pointer. You probably want to pass it by reference:
void Test::InitObject(LargeObject*& obj)
Passing by value means that you're assigning the return of new to a copy of the pointer. The one outside the function InitObject remains unchanged.
A few more things - initializing objects after construction should be done with care. If the object isn't valid after construction, it's a bad design (excluding some rare cases). You can signal invalid initialization by throwing an exception from the constructor.
Also, consider using smart pointers instead of raw pointers.
Do class objects declared on the stack have the same lifetime as other stack variables?
I have this code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <vector>
using std::vector;
#include <string>
using std::string;
class Child;
class Parent
{
public:
Parent(string s) : name(s) { };
vector<Child> children;
string name;
};
class Child
{
public:
Child() { /* I need this for serialization */ };
Child(Parent *p) : parent(p) { };
Parent *parent;
};
Parent
family()
{
Parent p("John Doe");
int i;
printf("family:\n\tparent: 0x%x\n\ti: %x\n", &p, &i);
for (i = 0; i < 2; ++i)
p.children.push_back(Child(&p));
return p;
}
int
main(void)
{
Parent p = family();
printf("main:\n\tparent: 0x%x\n", &p);
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < p.children.size(); ++i)
printf
(
"\t\tchild[%d]: parent: 0x%x parent.name '%s'\n",
i,
p.children[i].parent,
p.children[i].parent->name.c_str()
);
return 0;
}
My questions:
In function family, is Parent p declared on the stack? From looking at the output, it would seem so
Each created Child goes on the stack too, right?
When I create each Child instance, I pass it a pointer to a stack variable. I imagine this is a big no-no, because stack variables are guaranteed to live only until the end of the function. After that the stack should get popped and the variables will be destroyed. Is this correct?
vector.push_back() passes arguments by reference, so at the end of the family function, p.children just contains references to the local variables, right?
Why is it all working? In main, why can I access the parent and each of its children? Is it all because the local variables from family are still intact and haven't been overwritten by some subsequent function call?
I think I'm misunderstanding where stuff lives in memory in C++. I'd really like to be pointed a resource that explains it well. Thanks in advance.
EDIT
Output from compiling the source and running:
misha#misha-K42Jr:~/Desktop/stackoverflow$ ./a.out
family:
parent: 0x2aa47470
i: 2aa47438
main:
parent: 0x2aa47470
child[0]: parent: 0x2aa47470 parent.name 'John Doe'
child[1]: parent: 0x2aa47470 parent.name 'John Doe'
It all works because vector makes copies of everything that you push_back. Your family function is also returning a copy, so even though the stack variable p goes out of scope and gets destroyed, the copy is valid.
I should point out that the Parent pointers retained by the Child objects will be invalid after the end of the family function. Since you didn't explicitly create a copy constructor in Child, one was generated for you automatically by the compiler, and it does a straight copy of the pointer; the pointer will point to an invalid object once p goes out of scope.
The Child objects that are in the vector survive for the reason that Mark Ransom pointed out, but the pointer to Parent * that each Child contains (which points to p) becomes invalid just as you expected.
If it appears to work, what likely happend is the compiler's optimizer inlined family(), and then combined the storage of main(){p} and family(){p} to avoid copying the returned object. This optimization would be likely even without inlining, but nearly certain with it.
It's easy to see why it would be allowed in this case, since your Parent class doesn't customize the copy constructor, but it's actually allowed regardless. The C++ standard makes special reference to return value optimization, and permits the compiler to pretend that a copy constructor has no side effects, even if it can't prove this.
To fix this, the Parent needs to be allocated on the heap, and some other provision would need to be made to free it. Assuming that no time-travel is involved (so that no object can become its own ancestor), this could be easily accomplished by using tr1::shared_ptr (or boost::shared_pointer for pre-TR1 compilers) for the pointer each child holds to its parent.
In function family, is Parent p declared on the stack? From looking at the output, it would seem so
Yes, that's right. However, since it is clear that p is returned by the function family, the compiler will use it to store the result instead of actually copying it into left-hand-side of Parent p = family();. In other words, it doesn't create the p in family() and then copies it because that would be wasteful. Instead, it creates the p in main() and uses it as p in family() to store the result directly (avoiding the useless copy).
Each created Child goes on the stack too, right?
No, std::vector dynamically allocates memory to store its elements (as indicated by the fact that the size can change at run-time). So the instances of Child that are pushed to the vector container are store in dynamically allocated memory (the Heap).
When I create each Child instance, I pass it a pointer to a stack variable. I imagine this is a big no-no, because stack variables are guaranteed to live only until the end of the function. After that the stack should get popped and the variables will be destroyed. Is this correct?
Yes that is correct. You should avoid this situation because it can be unsafe. One good way to avoid this and still have the capability of storing a pointer to the Parent in the Child object is to make the Parent non-copyable (making both copy-constructor and assignment operator private and without an implementation). This will have the effect that since a Parent cannot be copied and since the parent contains its children, the pointer to parent that the children have will never go invalid as long as the children are not destroyed (since they are destroyed along with their parent). This scheme would usually also come with a sort-of factory function for the Child objects and a private access on the Child's constructor granting friendship to the parent or static factory function. That way, it is also possible to prohibit a programmer from creating instances of Child that are not directly owned by the parent to which they are attached. Note also, that move-semantics and/or deep-copying can make the parent "copyable" or at least movable while keeping the children consistent with their parent.
vector.push_back() passes arguments by reference, so at the end of the family function, p.children just contains references to the local variables, right?
No, vector takes arguments by const reference, then possibly allocates additional storage for that object, and then places a copy of the argument into that new memory slot (placement new operator). So the p.children are objects (not references) and are contained in the vector (it is called a "container" after all).
Why is it all working? In main, why can I access the parent and each of its children? Is it all because the local variables from family are still intact and haven't been overwritten by some subsequent function call?
If you read my first answer, it becomes evident why this still works (but it might not work all the time).
What are some ways you can shoot yourself in the foot when using boost::shared_ptr? In other words, what pitfalls do I have to avoid when I use boost::shared_ptr?
Cyclic references: a shared_ptr<> to something that has a shared_ptr<> to the original object. You can use weak_ptr<> to break this cycle, of course.
I add the following as an example of what I am talking about in the comments.
class node : public enable_shared_from_this<node> {
public :
void set_parent(shared_ptr<node> parent) { parent_ = parent; }
void add_child(shared_ptr<node> child) {
children_.push_back(child);
child->set_parent(shared_from_this());
}
void frob() {
do_frob();
if (parent_) parent_->frob();
}
private :
void do_frob();
shared_ptr<node> parent_;
vector< shared_ptr<node> > children_;
};
In this example, you have a tree of nodes, each of which holds a pointer to its parent. The frob() member function, for whatever reason, ripples upwards through the tree. (This is not entirely outlandish; some GUI frameworks work this way).
The problem is that, if you lose reference to the topmost node, then the topmost node still holds strong references to its children, and all its children also hold a strong reference to their parents. This means that there are circular references keeping all the instances from cleaning themselves up, while there is no way of actually reaching the tree from the code, this memory leaks.
class node : public enable_shared_from_this<node> {
public :
void set_parent(shared_ptr<node> parent) { parent_ = parent; }
void add_child(shared_ptr<node> child) {
children_.push_back(child);
child->set_parent(shared_from_this());
}
void frob() {
do_frob();
shared_ptr<node> parent = parent_.lock(); // Note: parent_.lock()
if (parent) parent->frob();
}
private :
void do_frob();
weak_ptr<node> parent_; // Note: now a weak_ptr<>
vector< shared_ptr<node> > children_;
};
Here, the parent node has been replaced by a weak pointer. It no longer has a say in the lifetime of the node to which it refers. Thus, if the topmost node goes out of scope as in the previous example, then while it holds strong references to its children, its children don't hold strong references to their parents. Thus there are no strong references to the object, and it cleans itself up. In turn, this causes the children to lose their one strong reference, which causes them to clean up, and so on. In short, this wont leak. And just by strategically replacing a shared_ptr<> with a weak_ptr<>.
Note: The above applies equally to std::shared_ptr<> and std::weak_ptr<> as it does to boost::shared_ptr<> and boost::weak_ptr<>.
Creating multiple unrelated shared_ptr's to the same object:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "boost/shared_ptr.hpp"
class foo
{
public:
foo() { printf( "foo()\n"); }
~foo() { printf( "~foo()\n"); }
};
typedef boost::shared_ptr<foo> pFoo_t;
void doSomething( pFoo_t p)
{
printf( "doing something...\n");
}
void doSomethingElse( pFoo_t p)
{
printf( "doing something else...\n");
}
int main() {
foo* pFoo = new foo;
doSomething( pFoo_t( pFoo));
doSomethingElse( pFoo_t( pFoo));
return 0;
}
Constructing an anonymous temporary shared pointer, for instance inside the arguments to a function call:
f(shared_ptr<Foo>(new Foo()), g());
This is because it is permissible for the new Foo() to be executed, then g() called, and g() to throw an exception, without the shared_ptr ever being set up, so the shared_ptr does not have a chance to clean up the Foo object.
Be careful making two pointers to the same object.
boost::shared_ptr<Base> b( new Derived() );
{
boost::shared_ptr<Derived> d( b.get() );
} // d goes out of scope here, deletes pointer
b->doSomething(); // crashes
instead use this
boost::shared_ptr<Base> b( new Derived() );
{
boost::shared_ptr<Derived> d =
boost::dynamic_pointer_cast<Derived,Base>( b );
} // d goes out of scope here, refcount--
b->doSomething(); // no crash
Also, any classes holding shared_ptrs should define copy constructors and assignment operators.
Don't try to use shared_from_this() in the constructor--it won't work. Instead create a static method to create the class and have it return a shared_ptr.
I've passed references to shared_ptrs without trouble. Just make sure it's copied before it's saved (i.e., no references as class members).
Here are two things to avoid:
Calling the get() function to get the raw pointer and use it after the pointed-to object goes out of scope.
Passing a reference of or a raw pointer to a shared_ptr should be dangerous too, since it won't increment the internal count which helps keep the object alive.
We debug several weeks strange behavior.
The reason was:
we passed 'this' to some thread workers instead of 'shared_from_this'.
Not precisely a footgun, but certainly a source of frustration until you wrap your head around how to do it the C++0x way: most of the predicates you know and love from <functional> don't play nicely with shared_ptr. Happily, std::tr1::mem_fn works with objects, pointers and shared_ptrs, replacing std::mem_fun, but if you want to use std::negate, std::not1, std::plus or any of those old friends with shared_ptr, be prepared to get cozy with std::tr1::bind and probably argument placeholders as well. In practice this is actually a lot more generic, since now you basically end up using bind for every function object adaptor, but it does take some getting used to if you're already familiar with the STL's convenience functions.
This DDJ article touches on the subject, with lots of example code. I also blogged about it a few years ago when I first had to figure out how to do it.
Using shared_ptr for really small objects (like char short) could be an overhead if you have a lot of small objects on heap but they are not really "shared". boost::shared_ptr allocates 16 bytes for every new reference count it creates on g++ 4.4.3 and VS2008 with Boost 1.42. std::tr1::shared_ptr allocates 20 bytes. Now if you have a million distinct shared_ptr<char> that means 20 million bytes of your memory are gone in holding just count=1. Not to mention the indirection costs and memory fragmentation. Try with the following on your favorite platform.
void * operator new (size_t size) {
std::cout << "size = " << size << std::endl;
void *ptr = malloc(size);
if(!ptr) throw std::bad_alloc();
return ptr;
}
void operator delete (void *p) {
free(p);
}
Giving out a shared_ptr< T > to this inside a class definition is also dangerous.
Use enabled_shared_from_this instead.
See the following post here
You need to be careful when you use shared_ptr in multithread code. It's then relatively easy to become into a case when couple of shared_ptrs, pointing to the same memory, is used by different threads.
The popular widespread use of shared_ptr will almost inevitably cause unwanted and unseen memory occupation.
Cyclic references are a well known cause and some of them can be indirect and difficult to spot especially in complex code that is worked on by more than one programmer; a programmer may decide than one object needs a reference to another as a quick fix and doesn't have time to examine all the code to see if he is closing a cycle. This hazard is hugely underestimated.
Less well understood is the problem of unreleased references. If an object is shared out to many shared_ptrs then it will not be destroyed until every one of them is zeroed or goes out of scope. It is very easy to overlook one of these references and end up with objects lurking unseen in memory that you thought you had finished with.
Although strictly speaking these are not memory leaks (it will all be released before the program exits) they are just as harmful and harder to detect.
These problems are the consequences of expedient false declarations: 1. Declaring what you really want to be single ownership as shared_ptr. scoped_ptr would be correct but then any other reference to that object will have to be a raw pointer, which could be left dangling. 2. Declaring what you really want to be a passive observing reference as shared_ptr. weak_ptr would be correct but then you have the hassle of converting it to share_ptr every time you want to use it.
I suspect that your project is a fine example of the kind of trouble that this practice can get you into.
If you have a memory intensive application you really need single ownership so that your design can explicitly control object lifetimes.
With single ownership opObject=NULL; will definitely delete the object and it will do it now.
With shared ownership spObject=NULL; ........who knows?......
If you have a registry of the shared objects (a list of all active instances, for example), the objects will never be freed. Solution: as in the case of circular dependency structures (see Kaz Dragon's answer), use weak_ptr as appropriate.
Smart pointers are not for everything, and raw pointers cannot be eliminated
Probably the worst danger is that since shared_ptr is a useful tool, people will start to put it every where. Since plain pointers can be misused, the same people will hunt raw pointers and try to replace them with strings, containers or smart pointers even when it makes no sense. Legitimate uses of raw pointers will become suspect. There will be a pointer police.
This is not only probably the worst danger, it may be the only serious danger. All the worst abuses of shared_ptr will be the direct consequence of the idea that smart pointers are superior to raw pointer (whatever that means), and that putting smart pointers everywhere will make C++ programming "safer".
Of course the mere fact that a smart pointer needs to be converted to a raw pointer to be used refutes this claim of the smart pointer cult, but the fact that the raw pointer access is "implicit" in operator*, operator-> (or explicit in get()), but not implicit in an implicit conversion, is enough to give the impression that this is not really a conversion, and that the raw pointer produced by this non-conversion is an harmless temporary.
C++ cannot be made a "safe language", and no useful subset of C++ is "safe"
Of course the pursuit of a safe subset ("safe" in the strict sense of "memory safe", as LISP, Haskell, Java...) of C++ is doomed to be endless and unsatisfying, as the safe subset of C++ is tiny and almost useless, as unsafe primitives are the rule rather than the exception. Strict memory safety in C++ would mean no pointers and only references with automatic storage class. But in a language where the programmer is trusted by definition, some people will insist on using some (in principle) idiot-proof "smart pointer", even where there is no other advantage over raw pointers that one specific way to screw the program state is avoided.