I know it's unwise to do so with a std::shared_ptr. But what about std::unique_ptr? E.g. :
class A {
public:
void do_something() { }
};
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<A> > uq_ptrs_;
auto p = new A();
uq_ptrs_.push_back(std::unique_ptr<A>(p));
p->do_something();
As long as you don't manually delete the object after creating the std::unique_ptr (or std::shared_ptr!) object then it's fine.
You should also avoid dereferencing the pointer p once you asked the std::unique_ptr (or std::shared_ptr) to take ownership of it. Instead use the smart pointer object.
Related
I have a head file which needs to hide some internals for complexity and "secrecy" reasons. I've therefore a raw void pointer declared in the oublic header, inside the code there are static casts to convert the raw pointer to it's actual type.
Now due to general memory management changes I need to change the type internally to a unique_ptr (it's coming from an object factory now as a unique_ptr, previously it was a raw pointer).
So in my header I have this:
class SomeClass {
private:
void *_hiddenTypeInstance;
}
Is it possible to static-cast this _hiddenTypeInstance to an internally known unique_ptr type?
This is not a direct answer of what you wanted, but a proposal how to do things nicer:) You can actually still use the memory semantics of std::unique_ptr with hiding the internals and without using the ugly void*. As others have mentioned, you should look into PIMPL, but to summarize:
Forward declare the internal type in the public header
Use std::unique_ptr with that type and provide a dtor for the class which holds that member (otherwise you will get compilation errors because a default dtor will be generated, that will try to delete the forward declared class and will fail to do so).
This would look something like this:
#include <memory>
class CPrivate; // Forward declare the internal class
class CPublic
{
public:
// You need the dtor here, since when you implement it in the .cpp of your library,
// where the definition of CPrivate is known, the dtor of std::unique_ptr will know how to delete it.
// If you do not put the dtor here, a default one will be generated here which invokes the dtor of std::unique_ptr, and here
// since CPrivate is forward declared the dtor of std::unique_ptr will not know how to delete it and you will get an error
~CPublic();
private:
std::unique_ptr<CPrivate> m_pPrivate;
}
By using this, you can then escape the casts inside the implementation from the void* to the actual type.
As for the original question - you can always cast void* to a std::unique_ptr<T>* (a pointer to a unique_ptr). But I would advise to evaluate the solution above. Because the void* thing moves away all type strictness - e.g what happens if someone changes T ?
if i understand you problem in a correct way: here is what you can do. This example is just for understanding of a concept. You can use it in your own code. Since I dont have the entire code I cant write exact solution.
class SomeClass {
private:
void *_hiddenTypeInstance;
public:
std::unique_ptr<int> foo() {
int a;
a = 2;
return std::unique_ptr<int>(&a);
}
void bar() {
std::unique_ptr<int> temp_hidden_type_instance;
temp_hidden_type_instance = std::unique_ptr<int>(static_cast<int*>(_hiddenTypeInstance));
temp_hidden_type_instance = foo();
}
};
I have been messing about with SFML, figuring out how a simple 2D game could be built. I just noticed this behaviour and couldn't figure out what's going on. Sample code for what is confusing me:
struct Unique {};
class Shared {
public:
Shared() {
p = make_unique<Unique>();
}
unique_ptr<Unique> p;
};
void SharedCopyTest() {
Shared foo;
//Shared copy = foo; // Error: function "Shared::Shared(const Shared &)"
// (declared implicitly) cannot be referenced
// -- it is a deleted function
shared_ptr<Shared> sharedPtr = make_shared<Shared>();
shared_ptr<Shared> ptrCopy = sharedPtr; // No error
}
At this point, &sharedPtr->p == &ptrCopy->p; but how is it possible, if p is of type unique_ptr<T>?
The semantics of std::shared_ptr is that no copies are made of the pointed-to object. Instead it's the std::shared_ptr object itself that is copied, and it increases the use-counter of the shared pointer.
That why it works, because you're not actually making a copy of the Shared object.
This can be easily verified by using the shared pointers get function to get the "raw" pointer:
sharedPtr.get() == ptrCopy.get()
Working on learning how to use smart pointers and C++ in general... Assume that I have the following class:
template<typename T>
class MyClass {
public:
MyClass(const T& def_val)
private:
std::unique_ptr<T> default_val;
};
What is the idiomatic way of implementing the constructor if I would only like to store a pointer to an object of type T with the value given in the default_val class member? My understanding is also that I don't have to define a destructor at all, since the unique_ptr will automatically taking care of cleaning up itself?
The way you have written your code, MyClass can only store a unique pointer to a copy of the constructor parameter:
MyClass::MyClass(const T& def_val)
: default_val(new T(def_val))
{
}
This means that T must be copy constructible.
My understanding is also that I don't have to define a destructor at all, since the unique_ptr will automatically taking care of cleaning up itself?
Correct. That is 1 of 2 main purposes for unique_ptr, the 2nd being the guarantee that it has only one owner.
If you're using C++11 you could add also a constructor that accepts an rvalue ref
template<typename T>
class MyClass {
public:
MyClass(T&& def_val) : default_val(new T(std::move(def_val))) {}
MyClass::MyClass(const T& def_val) : default_val(new T(def_val)) {}
private:
std::unique_ptr<T> default_val;
};
now you accept both const ref, generating a copy, or temporaries
I'm looking into move semantics from C++11 and I'm curious how to move fundamental types like boolean, integer float etc. in the constructor. Also the compound types like std::string.
Take the following class for example:
class Test
{
public:
// Default.
Test()
: m_Name("default"), m_Tested(true), m_Times(1), m_Grade('B')
{
// Starting up...
}
Test(const Test& other)
: m_Name(other.m_Name), m_Times(other.m_Times)
, m_Grade(other.m_Grade), m_Tested(other.m_Tested)
{
// Duplicating...
}
Test(Test&& other)
: m_Name(std::move(other.m_Name)) // Is this correct?
{
// Moving...
m_Tested = other.m_Tested; // I want to move not copy.
m_Times = other.m_Times; // I want to move not copy.
m_Grade = other.m_Grade; // I want to move not copy.
}
~Test()
{
// Shutting down....
}
private:
std::string m_Name;
bool m_Tested;
int m_Times;
char m_Grade;
};
How do I move (not copy) m_Tested, m_Times, m_Grade. And is m_Name moved correctly? Thank you for your time.
Initialization and assignment of a primitive from a prvalue or xvalue primitive has exactly the same effect as initialization or assignment from a lvalue primitive; the value is copied and the source object is unaffected.
In other words, you can use std::move but it won't make any difference.
If you want to change the value of the source object (to 0, say) you'll have to do that yourself.
Looks correct. Except simple data types like bool, int, char are only copied. The point of "moving" a string is that it has a buffer that it normally has to copy when constructing a new object, however when moving the old buffer is used (copying the pointer and not the contents of the buffer).
Test(Test&& other)
: m_Name(std::move(other.m_Name)), m_Times(other.m_Times)
, m_Grade(other.m_Grade), m_Tested(other.m_Tested)
{}
I often use the "dependency injection" pattern in my projects. In C++ it is easiest to implement by passing around raw pointers, but now with C++11, everything in high-level code should be doable with smart pointers. But what is the best practice for this case? Performance is not critical, a clean and understandable code matters more to me now.
Let me show a simplified example. We have an algorithm that uses distance calculations inside. We want to be able to replace this calculation with different distance metrics (Euclidean, Manhattan, etc.). Our goal is to be able to say something like:
SomeAlgorithm algorithmWithEuclidean(new EuclideanDistanceCalculator());
SomeAlgorithm algorithmWithManhattan(new ManhattanDistanceCalculator());
but with smart pointers to avoid manual new and delete.
This is a possible implementation with raw pointers:
class DistanceCalculator {
public:
virtual double distance(Point p1, Point p2) = 0;
};
class EuclideanDistanceCalculator {
public:
virtual double distance(Point p1, Point p2) {
return sqrt(...);
}
};
class ManhattanDistanceCalculator {
public:
virtual double distance(Point p1, Point p2) {
return ...;
}
};
class SomeAlgorithm {
DistanceCalculator* distanceCalculator;
public:
SomeAlgorithm(DistanceCalculator* distanceCalculator_)
: distanceCalculator(distanceCalculator_) {}
double calculateComplicated() {
...
double dist = distanceCalculator->distance(p1, p2);
...
}
~SomeAlgorithm(){
delete distanceCalculator;
}
};
Let's assume that copying is not really an issue, and if we didn't need polymorphism we would just pass the DistanceCalculator to the constructor of SomeAlgorithm by value (copying). But since we need to be able to pass in different derived instances (without slicing), the parameter must be either a raw pointer, a reference or a smart pointer.
One solution that comes to mind is to pass it in by reference-to-const and encapsulate it in a std::unique_ptr<DistanceCalculator> member variable. Then the call would be:
SomeAlgorithm algorithmWithEuclidean(EuclideanDistance());
But this stack-allocated temporary object (rvalue-reference?) will be destructed after this line. So we'd need some copying to make it more like a pass-by-value. But since we don't know the runtime type, we cannot construct our copy easily.
We could also use a smart pointer as the constructor parameter. Since there is no issue with ownership (the DistanceCalculator will be owned by SomeAlgorithm) we should use std::unique_ptr. Should I really replace all of such constructor parameters with unique_ptr? it seems to reduce readability. Also the user of SomeAlgorithm must construct it in an awkward way:
SomeAlgorithm algorithmWithEuclidean(std::unique_ptr<DistanceCalculator>(new EuclideanDistance()));
Or should I use the new move semantics (&&, std::move) in some way?
It seems to be a pretty standard problem, there must be some succinct way to implement it.
If I wanted to do this, the first thing I'd do is kill your interface, and instead use this:
SomeAlgorithm(std::function<double(Point,Point)> distanceCalculator_)
type erased invocation object.
I could do a drop-in replacement using your EuclideanDistanceCalculator like this:
std::function<double(Point,Point)> UseEuclidean() {
auto obj = std::make_shared<EuclideanDistance>();
return [obj](Point a, Point b)->double {
return obj->distance( a, b );
};
}
SomeAlgorithm foo( UseEuclidean() );
but as distance calculators rarely require state, we could do away with the object.
With C++1y support, this shortens to:
std::function<double(Point,Point>> UseEuclidean() {
return [obj = std::make_shared<EuclideanDistance>()](Point a, Point b)->double {
return obj->distance( a, b );
};
}
which as it no longer requires a local variable, can be used inline:
SomeAlgorithm foo( [obj = std::make_shared<EuclideanDistance>()](Point a, Point b)->double {
return obj->distance( a, b );
} );
but again, the EuclideanDistance doesn't have any real state, so instead we can just
std::function<double(Point,Point>> EuclideanDistance() {
return [](Point a, Point b)->double {
return sqrt( (b.x-a.x)*(b.x-a.x) + (b.y-a.y)*(b.y*a.y) );
};
}
If we really don't need movement but we do need state, we can write a unique_function< R(Args...) > type that does not support non-move based assignment, and store one of those instead.
The core of this is that the interface DistanceCalculator is noise. The name of the variable is usually enough. std::function< double(Point,Point) > m_DistanceCalculator is clear in what it does. The creator of the type-erasure object std::function handles any lifetime management issues, we just store the function object by value.
If your actual dependency injection is more complicated (say multiple different related callbacks), using an interface isn't bad. If you want to avoid copy requirements, I'd go with this:
struct InterfaceForDependencyStuff {
virtual void method1() = 0;
virtual void method2() = 0;
virtual int method3( double, char ) = 0;
virtual ~InterfaceForDependencyStuff() {}; // optional if you want to do more work later, but probably worth it
};
then, write up your own make_unique<T>(Args&&...) (a std one is coming in C++1y), and use it like this:
Interface:
SomeAlgorithm(std::unique_ptr<InterfaceForDependencyStuff> pDependencyStuff)
Use:
SomeAlgorithm foo(std::make_unique<ImplementationForDependencyStuff>( blah blah blah ));
If you don't want virtual ~InterfaceForDependencyStuff() and want to use unique_ptr, you have to use a unique_ptr that stores its deleter (by passing in a stateful deleter).
On the other hand, if std::shared_ptr already comes with a make_shared, and it stores its deleter statefully by default. So if you go with shared_ptr storage of your interface, you get:
SomeAlgorithm(std::shared_ptr<InterfaceForDependencyStuff> pDependencyStuff)
and
SomeAlgorithm foo(std::make_shared<ImplementationForDependencyStuff>( blah blah blah ));
and make_shared will store a pointer-to-function that deletes ImplementationForDependencyStuff that will not be lost when you convert it to a std::shared_ptr<InterfaceForDependencyStuff>, so you can safely lack a virtual destructor in InterfaceForDependencyStuff. I personally would not bother, and leave virtual ~InterfaceForDependencyStuff there.
In most cases you don't want or need ownership transfer, it makes code harder to understand and less flexible (moved-from objects can't be reused). The typical case would be to keep ownership with the caller:
class SomeAlgorithm {
DistanceCalculator* distanceCalculator;
public:
explicit SomeAlgorithm(DistanceCalculator* distanceCalculator_)
: distanceCalculator(distanceCalculator_) {
if (distanceCalculator == nullptr) { abort(); }
}
double calculateComplicated() {
...
double dist = distanceCalculator->distance(p1, p2);
...
}
// Default special members are fine.
};
int main() {
EuclideanDistanceCalculator distanceCalculator;
SomeAlgorithm algorithm(&distanceCalculator);
algorithm.calculateComplicated();
}
Raw pointers are fine to express non-ownership. If you prefer you can use a reference in the constructor argument, it makes no real difference. However, don't use a reference as data member, it makes the class unnecessarily unassignable.
The down side of just using any pointer (smart or raw), or even an ordinary C++ reference, is that they allow calling non-const methods from a const context.
For stateless classes with a single method that is a non-issue, and std::function is a good alternative, but for the general case of classes with state or multiple methods I propose a wrapper similar but not identical to std::reference_wrapper (which lacks the const safe accessor).
template<typename T>
struct NonOwningRef{
NonOwningRef() = delete;
NonOwningRef(T& other) noexcept : ptr(std::addressof(other)) { };
NonOwningRef(const NonOwningRef& other) noexcept = default;
const T& value() const noexcept{ return *ptr; };
T& value() noexcept{ return *ptr; };
private:
T* ptr;
};
usage:
class SomeAlgorithm {
NonOwningRef<DistanceCalculator> distanceCalculator;
public:
SomeAlgorithm(DistanceCalculator& distanceCalculator_)
: distanceCalculator(distanceCalculator_) {}
double calculateComplicated() {
double dist = distanceCalculator.value().distance(p1, p2);
return dist;
}
};
Replace T* with unique_ptr or shared_ptr to get owning versions. In this case, also add move construction, and construction from any unique_ptr<T2> or shared_ptr<T2> ).