Should I use shared_ptr or unique_ptr

Question

I've been making some objects using the pimpl idiom, but I'm not sure whether to use std::shared_ptr or std::unique_ptr.

I understand that std::unique_ptr is more efficient, but this isn't so much of an issue for me, as these objects are relatively heavyweight anyway so the cost of std::shared_ptr over std::unique_ptr is relatively minor.

I'm currently going with std::shared_ptr just because of the extra flexibility. For example, using a std::shared_ptr allows me to store these objects in a hashmap for quick access while still being able to return copies of these objects to callers (as I believe any iterators or references may quickly become invalid).

However, these objects in a way really aren't being copied, as changes affect all copies, so I was wondering that perhaps using std::shared_ptr and allowing copies is some sort of anti-pattern or bad thing.

Is this correct?

Answer 1

If you use shared_ptr, it's not really the classical pimpl idiom (unless you take additional steps). But the real question is why you want to use a smart pointer to begin with; it's very clear where the delete should occur, and there's no issue of exception safety or other to be concerned with. At most, a smart pointer will save you a line or two of code. And the only one which has the correct semantics is boost::scoped_ptr, and I don't think it works in this case. (IIRC, it requires a complete type in order to be instantiated, but I could be wrong.)

An important aspect of the pimpl idiom is that its use should be transparent to the client; the class should behave exactly as if it were implemented classically. This means either inhibiting copy and assignment or implementing deep copy, unless the class is immutable (no non-const member functions). None of the usual smart pointers implement deep copy; you could implement one, of course, but it would probably still require a complete type whenever the copy occurs, which means that you'd still have to provide a user defined copy constructor and assignment operator (since they can't be inline). Given this, it's probably not worth the bother using the smart pointer.

An exception is if the objects are immutable. In this case, it doesn't matter whether the copy is deep or not, and shared_ptr handles the situation completely.

Answer 2

I've been making some objects using the pimpl idiom, but I'm not sure whether to used shared_ptr or unique_ptr.

Definitely unique_ptr or scoped_ptr.

Pimpl is not a pattern, but an idiom, which deals with compile-time dependency and binary compatibility. It should not affect the semantics of the objects, especially with regard to its copying behavior.

You may use whatever kind of smart pointer you want under the hood, but those 2 guarantee that you won't accidentally share the implementation between two distinct objects, as they require a conscious decision about the implementation of the copy constructor and assignment operator.

However, these objects in a way really aren't being copied, as changes affect all copies, so I was wondering that perhaps using shared_ptr and allowing copies is some sort of anti-pattern or bad thing.

It is not an anti-pattern, in fact, it is a pattern: Aliasing. You already use it, in C++, with bare pointers and references. shared_ptr offer an extra measure of "safety" to avoid dead references, at the cost of extra complexity and new issues (beware of cycles which create memory leaks).

---

Unrelated to Pimpl

I understand unique_ptr is more efficient, but this isn't so much of an issue for me, as these objects are relatively heavyweight anyway so the cost of shared_ptr over unique_ptr is relatively minor.

If you can factor out some state, you may want to take a look at the Flyweight pattern.

Answer 3

Yes, please use them. Simply put, the shared_ptr is an implementation of smart pointer. unique_ptr is an implementation of automatic pointer:

Answer 4

When you use a shared_ptr (for example in a container, then look this up and return it by-value), you are not causing a copy of the object it points to, simply a copy of the pointer with a reference count.

This means that if you modify the underlying object from multiple points, then you affect changes on the same instance. This is exactly what it is designed for, so not some anti-pattern!

When passing a shared_ptr (as the comments say,) it's better to pass by const reference and copy (there by incrementing the reference count) where needed. As for return, case-by-case.