I was trying with the cyclic references for boost::shared_ptr
, and devised following sample:
class A{ // Trivial class
public:
i32 i;
A(){}
A(i32 a):i(a){}
~A(){
cout<<"~A : "<<i<<endl;
}
};
shared_ptr<A> changeI(shared_ptr<A> s){
s->i++;
cout<<s.use_count()<<'\n';
return s;
}
int main() {
shared_ptr<A> p1 = make_shared<A>(3);
shared_ptr<A> p2 = p1;
shared_ptr<A> p3 = p2;
shared_ptr<A> p4 = p3;
p1 = p4; // 1) 1st cyclic ref.
cout<<p1.use_count()<<'\n';
p1 = changeI(p4); // 2) 2nd cyclic ref.
cout<<p1.use_count()<<'\n';
// putchar('\n');
cout<<endl;
}
which outputs
4
5
4
~A : 4
Is it that I've misinterpreted the cyclic references mentioned for boost::shared_ptr
? Because, I expected different output thinking of indirect references to p1
after comments 1)
and 2)
.
So this code doesn't require boost::weak_ptr
! So what are the cyclic references where weak_ptr
s would be required?
Thanks in advance.
Just wanted to point out: the reason why the second line of the output is a
5
and not a4
is not because of thes->i++
increase, but because theshared_ptr<A> s
parameter is being passed by value.Upon calling
p4
will be copied to yet anothershared_pointer
, temporarily increasing theuse_count
by one during the scope of the function.Maybe I'm playing captain obvious here (;
Yes, you have misinterpreted this. In your example, all the pointers are pointing to the same object, not forming any cycles.
The assignment of p4 to p2 is a no-op, since those pointers were already equal to begin with.
Here's an example with real cyclic references, maybe that will clear things up:
You can even make this even simpler:
In both examples, the objects in the shared_ptrs are never destructed, even after you leave main.