Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] Interest in the missing smart pointer (that can target the stack)
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-01-29 14:24:17
On January 29, 2016 5:25:49 AM EST, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2016-01-29 12:40, Rob Stewart wrote:
> > On January 29, 2016 2:48:56 AM EST, Emil Dotchevski
> <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> The point of shared_ptr is to be able to reason that as long as you
> >> hold on
> >> to a shared_ptr (which you might get by copying another shared_ptr
> >> by
> >> locking a weak_ptr), the object will not expire, but you don't hold
> >> to
> >> it longer than you need to. This reasoning is perfectly valid
> >> the scope of do_something.
> > If do_something() saves a copy of the shared pointer in a container,
> for example, later references will refer to a non-existent object.
> There's nothing you can do about it short of using assertions or
> another runtime check with a call to std::terminate() or similar.
> That's hardly ideal.
> I think what Emil describes is a special case of a 'dangling_ptr'
> if I may call it that way. The point is that there are cases when
> lifetime is controlled by a third party (e.g. the stack state, a
> library, etc.) and you need a safe way to know when the object has
> deleted. So you create a shared_ptr with a null_deleter pointing to
> object and save it in that object (or another storage associated with
> that object). You keep only weak_ptrs to that object in all other
> in the code. When you need to use the object you have to lock a
> and thus check if the object is still alive.
I understand that full well. The example that Emil presented can easily lead to having shared_ptrs that refer to release stack memory.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk