I have this code that doesn't work, but I think the intent is clear:
testmakeshared.cpp
#include <memory>
class A {
public:
static ::std::shared_ptr<A> create() {
return ::std::make_shared<A>();
}
protected:
A() {}
A(const A &) = delete;
const A &operator =(const A &) = delete;
};
::std::shared_ptr<A> foo()
{
return A::create();
}
But I get this error when I compile it:
g++ -std=c++0x -march=native -mtune=native -O3 -Wall testmakeshared.cpp
In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr.h:52:0,
from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/memory:86,
from testmakeshared.cpp:1:
testmakeshared.cpp: In constructor ‘std::_Sp_counted_ptr_inplace<_Tp, _Alloc, _Lp>::_Sp_counted_ptr_inplace(_Alloc) [with _Tp = A, _Alloc = std::allocator<A>, __gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy _Lp = (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2u]’:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:518:8: instantiated from ‘std::__shared_count<_Lp>::__shared_count(std::_Sp_make_shared_tag, _Tp*, const _Alloc&, _Args&& ...) [with _Tp = A, _Alloc = std::allocator<A>, _Args = {}, __gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy _Lp = (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2u]’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:986:35: instantiated from ‘std::__shared_ptr<_Tp, _Lp>::__shared_ptr(std::_Sp_make_shared_tag, const _Alloc&, _Args&& ...) [with _Alloc = std::allocator<A>, _Args = {}, _Tp = A, __gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy _Lp = (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2u]’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr.h:313:64: instantiated from ‘std::shared_ptr<_Tp>::shared_ptr(std::_Sp_make_shared_tag, const _Alloc&, _Args&& ...) [with _Alloc = std::allocator<A>, _Args = {}, _Tp = A]’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr.h:531:39: instantiated from ‘std::shared_ptr<_Tp> std::allocate_shared(const _Alloc&, _Args&& ...) [with _Tp = A, _Alloc = std::allocator<A>, _Args = {}]’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr.h:547:42: instantiated from ‘std::shared_ptr<_Tp1> std::make_shared(_Args&& ...) [with _Tp = A, _Args = {}]’
testmakeshared.cpp:6:40: instantiated from here
testmakeshared.cpp:10:8: error: ‘A::A()’ is protected
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:400:2: error: within this context
Compilation exited abnormally with code 1 at Tue Nov 15 07:32:58
This message is basically saying that some random method way down in the template instantiation stack from ::std::make_shared
can't access the constructor because it's protected.
But I really want to use both ::std::make_shared
and prevent anybody from making an object of this class that isn't pointed at by a ::std::shared_ptr
. Is there any way to accomplish this?
[Edit] I read through the thread noted above on a standardized
std::shared_ptr_access<>
proposal. Within there was a response noting a fix tostd::allocate_shared<>
and an example of its use. I've adapted it to a factory template below, and tested it under gcc C++11/14/17. It works withstd::enable_shared_from_this<>
as well, so would obviously be preferable to my original solution in this answer. Here it is...[Orig] I found a solution using the shared pointer aliasing constructor. It allows both the ctor and dtor to be private, as well as use of the final specifier.
Note that the approach above doesn't play well with
std::enable_shared_from_this<>
because the initialstd::shared_ptr<>
is to the wrapper and not the type itself. We can address this with an equivalent class that is compatible with the factory...Lastly, somebody said clang complained about Factory::Type being private when used as a friend, so just make it public if that's the case. Exposing it does no harm.
Here's a neat solution for this:
Ideally, I think the perfect solution would require additions to the C++ standard. Andrew Schepler proposes the following:
(Go here for the whole thread)
Usage
If/when the above is added to the standard, we would simply do:
If this also sounds like an important addition to the standard to you, feel free to add your 2 cents to the linked isocpp Google Group.