Smart Pointers: Or who owns you baby?
C++ is all about memory ownership
Aka " Ownership Semantics "
It is the responsibility of the owner of a chunk of dynamically allocated memory to release that memory. So the question really becomes who owns the memory.
In C++ ownership is documented by the type a RAW pointer is wrapped inside thus in a good (IMO) C++ program it is very rare [RARE not NEVER] to see RAW pointers passed around (as RAW pointers have no inferred ownership thus we can not tell who owns the memory and thus without careful reading of the documentation you can't tell who is responsible for ownership).
Conversely it is rare to see RAW pointers stored in a class each RAW pointer is stored within its own SMART pointer wrapper. (NB: If you don't own an object you should not be storing it because you can not know when it will go out of scope and be destroyed.)
So the question:
Lets keep 1 type of semantic ownership per answer so they can be voted up and down individually
Summary:
Conceptually smart pointers are simple and a naive implementations are easy. I have seen many attempted implementations, but invariably they are broken in some way that is not obvious to casual use and examples. Thus I recommend always using well tested "Smart Pointers" from a library rather than rolling your own. std::auto_ptr or one of the boost smart pointers seem to cover all my needs.
std::auto_ptr<T>:
Single person owns the object.
But transfer of ownership is allowed.
Usage:
======
This allows you to define interfaces that show the explicit transfer of ownership.
boost::scoped_ptr<T>
Single person owns the object.
Transfer of ownership is NOT allowed.
Usage:
======
Used to show explicit ownership.
Object will be destroyed by destructor or when explicitly reset.
boost::shared_ptr<T> (std::tr1::shared_ptr<T>)
Multiple ownership.
This is a simple reference counted pointer. When reference count reaches zero object is destroyed.
Usage:
======
When object can have multiple owers with a lifetime that can not be determined at compile time.
boost::weak_ptr<T>
Used with shared_ptr<T>.
In situations where a cycle of pointers may happen.
Usage:
======
Used to stop cycles from retaining objects when only the cycle is maintaining a shared refcount.
For me, these 3 kinds cover most of my needs:
shared_ptr - reference-counted, deallocation when the counter reaches zero
weak_ptr - same as above, but it's a 'slave' for a shared_ptr , can't deallocate
auto_ptr - when the creation and deallocation happen inside the same function, or when the object has to be considered one-owner-only ever. When you assign one pointer to another, the second 'steals' the object from the first.
I have my own implementation for these, but they are also available in Boost .
I still pass objects by reference ( const whenever possible), in this case the called method must assume the object is alive only during the time of call.
There's another kind of pointer that I use that I call hub_ptr . It's when you have an object that must be accessible from objects nested in it (usually as a virtual base class). This could be solved by passing a weak_ptr to them, but it doesn't have a shared_ptr to itself. As it knows these objects wouldn't live longer than him, it passes a hub_ptr to them (it's just a template wrapper to a regular pointer).
Simple C++ Model
In most modules I saw, by default, it was assumed that receiving pointers was not receiving ownership. In fact, functions/methods abandoning ownership of a pointer were both very rare and explicitly expressed that fact in their documentation.
This model assumes that the user is owner only of what he/she explicitly allocates . Everything else is automatically disposed of (at scope exit, or through RAII). This is a C-like model, extended by the fact most pointers are owned by objects that will deallocate them automatically or when needed (at said objects destruction, mostly), and that the life duration of objects are predictable (RAII is your friend, again).
In this model, raw pointers are freely circulating and mostly not dangerous (but if the developer is smart enough, he/she will use references instead whenever possible).
Smart Pointed C++ Model
In a code full of smart pointers, the user can hope to ignore the lifetime of objects. The owner is never the user code: It is the smart pointer itself (RAII, again). The problem is that circular references mixed with reference counted smart pointers can be deadly , so you have to deal both with both shared pointers and weak pointers. So you have still ownership to consider (the weak pointer could well point to nothing, even if its advantage over raw pointer is that it can tell you so).
Conclusion
No matter the models I describe, unless exception, receiving a pointer is not receiving its ownership and it is still very important to know who owns who . Even for C++ code heavily using references and/or smart pointers.
Don't have shared ownership. If you do, make sure it's only with code you don't control.
That solves 100% of the problems, since it forces you to understand how everything interacts.
链接地址: http://www.djcxy.com/p/20768.html上一篇: 什么时候是std :: weak
下一篇: 智能指针：或谁拥有你的宝贝？