about shared_ptr

[Ernst Murnleitner]

Hello,

in 2 other threads I had questions partly related to shared_ptr.

I changed my normal pointers to a class to shared_ptr. (i.e.
boost::shared_p tr).
I thought, the use of shared_ptr is more save. But after this my program
crashed by several reasons (see below). But maybe there would be an easy
solution which I cannot see now.

1) I mixed normal pointers and shared _ptr at some places. This is very
ugly, for example:

class A;

shared_ptr<A> a = new A;
A * p = a.this();
{
shared_ptr<A> a2 = p;
} // the object will be deleted here!!!
a->f(); // crash?


Question: Is it possible to make that a shared_ptr can only be initialised
by another shared_ptr or by the new expression?


2) shared_from_thi s():
template enable_shared_f rom_this cannot be used in a class with 2 instances
of the same base class?

In my hierarchy, I have the same base class twice in one object
(non-virtual). As this base class has boost::enable_s hared_from_this <> as
Base again, I cannot compile (ambigous...).

Maybe I could circumvent this by making one Baseclass a virtual base class.
But wasn't there a restriction by using virtual base classes? (As far as I
can remember it was something with RTTI or with casts).

I know that 2 base classes is not a good idea, but there was a problem by
using virtual inheritance.

Greetings
Ernst

[tom_usenet]

Re: about shared_ptr

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:56:45 +0100, "Ernst Murnleitner"
<mur-spam@awite.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Hello,
>
>in 2 other threads I had questions partly related to shared_ptr.
>
>I changed my normal pointers to a class to shared_ptr. (i.e.
>boost::shared_ ptr).
>I thought, the use of shared_ptr is more save. But after this my program
>crashed by several reasons (see below). But maybe there would be an easy
>solution which I cannot see now.
>
>1) I mixed normal pointers and shared _ptr at some places. This is very
>ugly, for example:
>
>class A;
>
>shared_ptr<A > a = new A;[/color]

Don't do the above - the code won't compile on a conforming compiler.
Instead, do:

shared_ptr<A> a(new A);
[color=blue]
>A * p = a.this();
>{
>shared_ptr<A > a2 = p;
>} // the object will be deleted here!!!
>a->f(); // crash?
>
>
>Question: Is it possible to make that a shared_ptr can only be initialised
>by another shared_ptr or by the new expression?[/color]

No, but using a conforming compiler prevents most mistakes (due to the
explicit T* constructor). Initializing a shared_ptr with a pointer
that hasn't just been newed in the same expression is almost always a
mistake, but if you know that, it's a hard mistake to make. Unless
your compiler has a bug that enables the implicit conversion, in which
case it is quite an easy mistake.
[color=blue]
>2) shared_from_thi s():
>template enable_shared_f rom_this cannot be used in a class with 2 instances
>of the same base class?
>
>In my hierarchy, I have the same base class twice in one object
>(non-virtual). As this base class has boost::enable_s hared_from_this <> as
>Base again, I cannot compile (ambigous...).[/color]

Right.
[color=blue]
>
>Maybe I could circumvent this by making one Baseclass a virtual base class.
>But wasn't there a restriction by using virtual base classes? (As far as I
>can remember it was something with RTTI or with casts).[/color]

Virtual inheritence has a small amount of overhead associated with it,
but no other problems that I can think of (other than having to
initialize the virtual base in the most derived class).
[color=blue]
>I know that 2 base classes is not a good idea, but there was a problem by
>using virtual inheritance.[/color]

You should use virtual inheritence unless you really want two copies
of the base class (which I doubt).

Tom

C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

[Ernst Murnleitner]

Re: about shared_ptr

> >shared_ptr<A > a = new A;[color=blue]
>
> Don't do the above - the code won't compile on a conforming compiler.
> Instead, do:
>
> shared_ptr<A> a(new A);
>[/color]

I think, in most cases, shared_ptr<A> a(new A) is not applicable, as
pointers are mostly used, if the class has to be constructed at runtime. If
I could make the initialisation this way, I would not need shared_ptr at
all:

In the class I defined a member variable
shared_ptr<A> a;

In the constructor, depending on the configuration stored in a data file:
a = new A;

Maybe I had to use
a = shared_ptr<A> (new A);
for compilers other than gcc 2.95?

[tom_usenet]

Re: about shared_ptr

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:11:56 +0100, "Ernst Murnleitner"
<mur-spam@awite.de> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >shared_ptr<A > a = new A;[/color]
>>
>> Don't do the above - the code won't compile on a conforming compiler.
>> Instead, do:
>>
>> shared_ptr<A> a(new A);
>>[/color]
>
>I think, in most cases, shared_ptr<A> a(new A) is not applicable, as
>pointers are mostly used, if the class has to be constructed at runtime. If
>I could make the initialisation this way, I would not need shared_ptr at
>all:
>
>In the class I defined a member variable
>shared_ptr<A > a;
>
>In the constructor, depending on the configuration stored in a data file:
>a = new A;
>
>Maybe I had to use
>a = shared_ptr<A> (new A);
>for compilers other than gcc 2.95?[/color]

Yes, you do. This bug in 2.95 makes using shared_ptr unnecessarily
hazardous!

Tom

C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

[Ernst Murnleitner]

Re: about shared_ptr

boost::shared_p tr did not work, as I needed a pointer to "this" already in
the constructor. As I found no way to fix this, I finally used
boost::intrusiv e_ptr.

As my classes are inherited from a base class, intrusive_ptr was a very good
solution. I can use the address operator for assignment to the
intrusive_ptr, and I can also assign "this" to the pointer at any time.
(Reference counts are incremented/decremented in the base class).

Greetings
Ernst