Why can't a weak_ptr be constructed from a uni

Question

If I understand correctly, a weak_ptr doesn't increment the reference count of the managed object, therefore it doesn't represent ownership. It simply lets you access an object, the lifetime of which is managed by someone else. So I don't really see why a weak_ptr can't be constructed from a unique_ptr, but only a shared_ptr.

Can someone briefly explain this?

Answer 1

std::weak_ptr can't be used unless you convert it to std::shared_ptr by the means of lock(). if the standard allowed what you suggest, that means that you need to convert std::weak_ptr to unique in order to use it, violating the uniqueness (or re-inventing std::shared_ptr)

In order to illustrate, look at the two pieces of code:

std::shared_ptr<int> shared = std::make_shared<int>(10);
std::weak_ptr<int> weak(shared);

{
*(w.lock()) = 20; //OK, the temporary shared_ptr will be destroyed but the pointee-integer still has shared  to keep it alive
}

Now with your suggestion:

std::unique_ptr<int> unique = std::make_unique<int>(10);
std::weak_ptr<int> weak(unique);

{
*(weak.lock()) = 20; //not OK. the temporary unique_ptr will be destroyed but unique still points at it! 
}

That has been said, you may suggest that there is only one unique_ptr, and you still can dereference weak_ptr (without creating another unique_ptr) then there is no problem. But then what is the difference between unique_ptr and shared_ptr with one reference? or more over, what is the difference between a regular unique_ptr and C-pointers an get by using get?

weak_ptr is not for "general non owning resources", it has very specific job - The main goal of weak_ptr is to prevent circular pointing of shared_ptr which will make a memory leak. Anything else is pretty much need to be done with plain unique_ptr and shared_ptr.

Answer 2

Looks like everyone is writing here about std::weak_ptr but not about weak poiner concept which I believe is what the author is asking for

I think that no one mentioned why standard library is not providing weak_ptr for unique_ptr. Weak pointer CONCEPT doesn't disclaims unique_ptr usage. Weak pointer is only an information if the object has been already deleted so it's not a magic but very simple generalized observer pattern.

It's because of threadsafety and consistency with shared_ptr.

You just simply can't guarantee that your weak_ptr (created from unique_ptr existing on other thread) will be not destroyed during calling method on pointed object. It's because weak_ptr needs to be consistent with std::shared_ptr which guarantee threadsafety. You can implement weak_ptr which works correctly with unique_ptr but only on the same thread - lock method will be unnecessary in this case. You can check chromium sources for base::WeakPtr and base::WeakPtrFactory - you can use it freely with unique_ptr. Chromium weak pointer code is most probably based on last member destruction - you need to add factory as a last member and after that I believe that WeakPtr is informed abut object deleteion (I'm not 100% sure) - so it doesn't looks so hard to implement.

Overall using unique_ptr with weak pointer concept is OK IMHO.

Answer 3

No-one has mentioned the performance aspect of the problem yet, so let me throw my $0.02 in.

weak_ptr must somehow know when the corresponding shared_ptrs have all gone out of scope and the pointed object has been deallocated and destroyed. This means that shared_ptrs need to communicate the destruction towards each weak_ptr to the same object somehow. This has a certain cost – for example, a global hash table needs to be updated, where weak_ptr gets the address from (or nullptr if the object is destroyed).

This also involves locking in a multi-threaded environment, so it can potentially be too slow for some tasks.

However, the goal of unique_ptr is to provide a zero-cost RAII-style abstraction class. Hence, it should not incur any other cost than that of deleteing (or delete[]ing) the dynamically allocated object. The delay imposed by doing a locked or otherwise guarded hash table access, for example, may be comparable to the cost of deallocation, however, which is not desirable in the case of unique_ptr.

Answer 4

It may be useful to distinguish reasons for preferring a unique_ptr over a shared_ptr.

Performance One obvious reason is computational-time and memory use. As currently defined, shared_ptr objects typically need something like a reference-count value, which takes space and also must be actively maintained. unique_ptr objects don't.

Semantics With a unique_ptr, you as the programmer have a pretty good idea when the pointed-to object is going to be destroyed: when the unique_ptr is destroyed or when one of its modifying methods is called. And so on large or unfamiliar code bases, using unique_ptr statically conveys (and enforces) some information about the program's runtime behavior that might not be obvious.

The comments above have generally focused on the performance-based reasons that it would be undesirable for weak_ptr objects to be tied to unique_ptr objects. But one might wonder if the semantics-based argument is sufficient reason for some future version of the STL to support the use-case implied by the original question.

Answer 5

Conceptually, there is nothing preventing an implementation where a weak_ptr only provides access and a unique_ptr controls the lifetime. However, there are problems with that:

• unique_ptr doesn't use reference counting to begin with. Adding the management structure for managing the weak references would be possible, but require an additional dynamic allocation. Since unique_ptr is supposed to avoid any(!) runtime overhead over a raw pointer, that overhead is not acceptable.
• In order to use the object referenced by a weak_ptr, you need to extract a "real" reference from it, which will first validate that the pointer is not expired first and then give you this real reference (a shared_ptr in this case). This means that you suddenly have a second reference to an object that is supposed to be uniquely owned, which is a recipe for errors. This can't be fixed by returning a mixed half-strong pointer that only temporarily delays possible destruction of the pointee, because you could just as well store that one, too, defeating the idea behind unique_ptr.

Just wondering, what problem are you trying to solve using a weak_ptr here?

Answer 6

If you think about it, a weak_ptr must refer to something other than the object itself. That's because the object can cease to exist (when there are no more strong pointers to it) and the weak_ptr still has to refer to something that contains the information that the object no longer exists.

With a shared_ptr, that something is the thing that contains the reference count. But with a unique_ptr, there is no reference count, so there is no thing that contains the reference count, thus nothing to continue to exist when the object is gone. So there's nothing for a weak_ptr to refer to.

There would also be no sane way to use such a weak_ptr. To use it, you'd have to have some way to guarantee that the object wasn't destroyed while you were using it. That's easy with a shared_ptr -- that's what a shared_ptr does. But how do you do that with a unique_ptr? You obviously can't have two of them, and something else must already own the object or it would have been destroyed since your pointer is weak.