I have a pointer to an object. I would like to store it in two containers which both have the ownership. So I think I would be good to make it a shared_ptr of C++0x. How could I convert a raw pointer to a shared_pointer?
typedef unordered_map<string, shared_ptr<classA>>MAP1; MAP1 map1; classA* obj = new classA(); map1[ID] = how could I store obj in map1??
Thanks
The weak_ptr class template stores a "weak reference" to an object that's already managed by a shared_ptr. To access the object, a weak_ptr can be converted to a shared_ptr using the shared_ptr constructor or the member function lock.
The shared_ptr type is a smart pointer in the C++ standard library that is designed for scenarios in which more than one owner might have to manage the lifetime of the object in memory.
A null shared_ptr does serve the same purpose as a raw null pointer. It might indicate the non-availability of data. However, for the most part, there is no reason for a null shared_ptr to possess a control block or a managed nullptr .
A shared_ptr may share ownership of an object while storing a pointer to another object. get() returns the stored pointer, not the managed pointer.
You need to make sure you don't initialize both shared_ptr objects with the same raw pointer, or it will be deleted twice. A better (but still bad) way to do it:
classA* raw_ptr = new classA; shared_ptr<classA> my_ptr(raw_ptr); // or shared_ptr<classA> my_ptr = raw_ptr; // ... shared_ptr<classA> other_ptr(my_ptr); // or shared_ptr<classA> other_ptr = my_ptr; // WRONG: shared_ptr<classA> other_ptr(raw_ptr); // ALSO WRONG: shared_ptr<classA> other_ptr = raw_ptr;
WARNING: the above code shows bad practice! raw_ptr
simply should not exist as a variable. If you directly initialize your smart pointers with the result of new
, you reduce your risk of accidentally initializing other smart pointers incorrectly. What you should do is:
shared_ptr<classA> my_ptr(new classA); shared_ptr<classA> other_ptr(my_ptr);
What's nice is that the code is more concise as well.
EDIT
I should probably elaborate on how it would work with a map. If you had a raw pointer and two maps, you could do something similar to what I showed above.
unordered_map<string, shared_ptr<classA> > my_map; unordered_map<string, shared_ptr<classA> > that_guys_map; shared_ptr<classA> my_ptr(new classA); my_map.insert(make_pair("oi", my_ptr)); that_guys_map.insert(make_pair("oi", my_ptr)); // or my_map["oi"].reset(my_ptr); // or my_map["oi"] = my_ptr; // so many choices!
You can use a variety of ways, but reset() would be good:
map1[ID].reset(obj);
And to address the issue of having two maps refer to the same shared_ptr, we can have:
map2[ID] = map1[ID];
Note that the trick in general to avoid a double delete is to try to avoid raw pointers at all. Hence avoid:
classA* obj = new classA(); map1[ID].reset(obj);
but instead put the new heap object straight into a shared_ptr.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With