Smart pointers in container like std::vector?

问题:

I am learning about smart pointers (std::auto_ptr) and just read here and here that smart pointers (std::auto_ptr) should not be put in containers (i.e. std::vector) because even most compilers won't complain and it might seem correct. There is no rule that says smart pointers won't be copied internally (by vector class for example) and transfer its ownership, then the pointer will become NULL. In the end, everything will be screwed up.

In reality, how often does this happen?

Sometimes I have vectors of pointers and if in the future I decide I want to have a vector of smart pointers what would my options?

I am aware of C++0x and Boost libraries, but for now, I would prefer to stick to a STL approach.

回答1:

Yes, you really can't use std::auto_ptr with standard containers. std::auto_ptr copies aren't equivalent, and because standard containers (and algorithms) are allowed to copy their elements at will this screws things up. That is, the operation of copying a std::auto_ptr has a meaning other than a mere copy of an object: it means transferring an ownership.

Your options are:

1. Use the Boost Smart Pointers library. This is arguably your best option.
2. Use primitive pointers. This is fast and safe, so long as you manage the pointers properly. At times this can be complex or difficult. For example, you'll have to cope with (avoid) double-delete issues on your own.
3. Use your own reference-counting smart pointer. That'd be silly; use a Boost Smart Pointer.

回答2:

The problem you are referring to concerns auto_ptr since it moves ownership on copy. shared_ptr and unique_ptr work just fine with containers.

回答3:

Any type that you use with a standard container template must conform with the requirements for that container. In particular, the type must satisfy the requirements for CopyConstructible and Assignable types.

Many smart pointers do satisfy these requirements and may be used with standard containers but std::auto_ptr is not one of them because copies of std::auto_ptr are not equivalent to the source that they were created or assigned from.

Although some implementations of standard container may work with auto_ptr in some situations it is dangerous to rely on such implementation details.

回答4:

theoretically you can use std::auto_ptr with STL containers if you completely understand their internal implementation and don't do anything that can lose auto_ptr ownership, but practically it's much more safe to use containers with raw ptrs.

"In reality, how often does this happen?" - is very dangerous question by itself. first of all, STL - it's not a single standard implementation, there're many. Each one can implement containers in different ways, so your highly tuned code to avoid all "auto_ptr in containers" mines can burst switching to another STL implementation. Also, your code maintenance will be highly complicated, any correctly looking change to your code can break your program. how can you remember that or force others maintainers to remember? putting warnings in any place where such changes can occur? impossible.

so, conclusion: it's just a bad idea that brings nothing but headache

回答5:

For classes that have an auto ptr data member, I always have a clone method that returns a new auto ptr. I then implement an assignment method and copy constructor that call the clone method (and never the default assignment operator of auto ptr). This way you can safely use the class in STL containers.