The trick is that std::shared_ptr performs type erasure. Basically, when a new shared_ptr is created it will store internally a deleter function (which can be given as argument to the constructor but if not present defaults to calling delete). When the shared_ptr is destroyed, it calls that stored function and that will call the deleter. … Read more
You are right. shared_ptr<const T> p; is similar to const T * p; (or, equivalently, T const * p;), that is, the pointed object is const whereas const shared_ptr<T> p; is similar to T* const p; which means that p is const. In summary: shared_ptr<T> p; —> T * p; : nothing is const const … Read more
A unique_ptr would not work because of getDevice(), right? No, not necessarily. What is important here is to determine the appropriate ownership policy for your Device object, i.e. who is going to be the owner of the object pointed to by your (smart) pointer. Is it going to be the instance of the Settings object … Read more
I think that the one thing the other answers did not emphasize enough is the point of speed. std::shared_ptr reference count is atomic. increasing or decreasing the reference count requires atomic increment or decrement. This is hundred times slower than non-atomic increment/decrement, not to mention that if we increment and decrement the same counter we … Read more
With C++17, shared_ptr can be used to manage a dynamically allocated array. The shared_ptr template argument in this case must be T[N] or T[]. So you may write shared_ptr<int[]> sp(new int[10]); From n4659, [util.smartptr.shared.const] template<class Y> explicit shared_ptr(Y* p); Requires: Y shall be a complete type. The expression delete[] p, when T is an array … Read more
This answer is probably better, and the one I’ll likely accept. But I also came up with a method that’s uglier, but does still let everything still be inline and doesn’t require a derived class: #include <memory> #include <string> class A { protected: struct this_is_private; public: explicit A(const this_is_private &) {} A(const this_is_private &, ::std::string, … Read more
Both of these classes are smart pointers, which means that they automatically (in most cases) will deallocate the object that they point at when that object can no longer be referenced. The difference between the two is how many different pointers of each type can refer to a resource. When using unique_ptr, there can be … Read more
std::weak_ptr is a very good way to solve the dangling pointer problem. By just using raw pointers it is impossible to know if the referenced data has been deallocated or not. Instead, by letting a std::shared_ptr manage the data, and supplying std::weak_ptr to users of the data, the users can check validity of the data … Read more
This question has been discussed and answered by Scott, Andrei and Herb during Ask Us Anything session at C++ and Beyond 2011. Watch from 4:34 on shared_ptr performance and correctness. Shortly, there is no reason to pass by value, unless the goal is to share ownership of an object (eg. between different data structures, or … Read more
The difference is that std::make_shared performs one heap-allocation, whereas calling the std::shared_ptr constructor performs two. Where do the heap-allocations happen? std::shared_ptr manages two entities: the control block (stores meta data such as ref-counts, type-erased deleter, etc) the object being managed std::make_shared performs a single heap-allocation accounting for the space necessary for both the control block … Read more