I'm working on a section of code that has many possible failure points which cause it to exit the function early. The libraries I'm interacting with require that C-style arrays be passed to the functions. So, instead of calling delete on the arrays at every exit point, I'm doing this:
void SomeFunction(int arrayLength)
{
shared_ptr<char> raiiArray(new char[arrayLength]);
pArray = raiiArray.get();
if(SomeFunctionThatRequiresCArray(pArray) == FAILED) { return; }
//etc.
}
I wanted to use unique_ptr
, but my current compiler doesn't support it and the reference count overhead doesn't really matter in this case.
I'm just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this practice when interfacing with legacy code.
UPDATE I completely forgot about the shared_ptr
calling delete
instead of delete []
. I just saw no memory leaks and decided to go with it. Didn't even think to use a vector. Since I've been delving into new (for me) C++ lately I'm thinking I've got a case of the "If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." syndrome. Thanks for the feedback.
UPDATE2 I figured I'd change the question and provide an answer to make it a little more valuable to someone making the same mistake I did. Although there are alternatives like scoped_array
, shared_array
and vector
, you can use a shared_ptr
to manage scope of an array (but after this I have no idea why I would want to):
template <typename T>
class ArrayDeleter
{
public:
void operator () (T* d) const
{
delete [] d;
}
};
void SomeFunction(int arrayLength)
{
shared_ptr<char> raiiArray(new char[arrayLength], ArrayDeleter<char>());
pArray = raiiArray.get();
if(SomeFunctionThatRequiresCArray(pArray) == FAILED) { return; }
//etc.
}
There's
boost::scoped_ptr
for this.Some remarks for C++11 users:
For
shared_ptr
, there is in C++11 a default deleter for array types defined in<memory>
and standard compliant (wrt the final draft) so it can be used without additional fancy deleters for such cases:unique_ptr
in C++11 has a partial specialization to deal withnew[]
anddelete[]
. But it does not have a shared behavior, unfortunately. Must be a good reason there is no such specialization forshared_ptr
but I didn't look for it, if you know it, please share it.I highly recommend simply using a
std::vector
. Elements invectors
are allocated on the heap, and will be deleted when thevector
goes out of scope, wherever you exit the function.In order to pass a
vector
to legacy code requiring C-style arrays, simply pass&vectorName[0]
. The elements are guaranteed to be contiguous in memory.Do not use
shared_ptr
orscoped_ptr
to hold pointers to dynamically allocated arrays. shared_ptr and scoped_ptr usedelete ptr;
to clean-up when the pointer is no longer referenced/goes out of scope, which invoked undefined behaviour on a dynamically allocated array. Instead, use shared_array or scoped_array, which correctly usedelete[] ptr;
when destructing.To answer your question, if you are not going to pass the smart pointer around, use
scoped_array
, as it has less overhead thanshared_array
.Alternatively, use
std::vector
as the array storage (vectors have guaranteed contiguous memory allocation).This
is not a good practice, but causes undefined behaviour, as you allocate with operator
new[]
, butshared_ptr
usesoperator delete
to free the memory. The right thing to use isboost::shared_array
or add a custom deleter.Use
boost::scoped_array
, or even betterstd::vector
if you are dealing with an array.