>
> > I want to distinguish the error_code set by calling socket::close from any other ways (like system error, network
> > error, etc), otherwise, I can't determine whether I should delete the object in async handlers, because
> some have already been deleted after I call socket::close. If boost::asio::error::operation_aborted
> definitely means "socket::close is called", I can distinguish this situation.
>
> It seems to be rather error-prone approach. One day, when your
> application will have grown a bit, you'll find yourself hunting weird
> segfaults / access-violations.
>
But when should I delete the object after I call socket::close? May be there's no async handler, so just deleting object in handlers leads to memory leak.
> > I've tried using boost::weak_ptr with boost::bind,but the performance decrease dramatically.
>
> Did you run a performance profiler with fully-optimized application
> and really discovered that the bottle-neck is in shared_ptr's?! This
> would be really surprising...
>
I've tested it separately, when binding a weak_ptr/shared_ptr with a member function, it will cause extra new/delete operations, but raw pointer will not(gcc 4.4.1, boost 1.4.3).The former way is about 20 times slower,as a frequently operation, it seems not acceptable.