forked from cirosantilli/cpp-cheat
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
unique_ptr.cpp
184 lines (157 loc) · 5.44 KB
/
unique_ptr.cpp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
/*
# unique_ptr
Sample use case:
- you want a dynamic array a dynmically allocated derived class
- thus you have to use pointers for polymorphism. Otherwise objects can have different sizes, and arrays can't be used.
- how to prevent memory leaks?
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/unique_ptr
unique_ptr may incur an extra dereferece cost, but it is usually well worth it.
In Java, everything can be though as a smart pointer (shared),
so using this is still more efficient than Java, since C++ can know the exact
lifetime of objects, and release them immediately when they are done.
*/
#include "common.hpp"
class Base {
public:
static int count;
Base(int i) : i(i) {
count++;
}
~Base() {
count--;
}
int i;
};
int Base::count = 0;
/* No memory leaked. Destructors called. */
void unique_ptr_test() {
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Base>> bases;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
bases.push_back(std::unique_ptr<Base>(new Base(i)));
}
}
/* Memory leak. Destructors never called. */
void raw_ptr_test() {
std::vector<Base *> bases;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
bases.push_back(new Base(i));
}
}
void manual_ptr_test() {
std::vector<Base *> bases;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
bases.push_back(new Base(i));
}
for (auto base : bases) {
delete base;
}
}
// Create unique pointer dynamically,
// and transfers ownershipt to caller.
std::unique_ptr<Base> return_unique_ptr() {
return std::unique_ptr<Base>(new Base(1));
}
int main() {
/* Basic example. */
assert(Base::count == 0);
unique_ptr_test();
assert(Base::count == 0);
raw_ptr_test();
assert(Base::count == 10);
manual_ptr_test();
assert(Base::count == 10);
// ERROR: Convert to raw pointer.
// Not possible, the cast operator is not defined.
{
std::unique_ptr<int> p(new int);
//int *raw = p;
}
// Copy constructor is deleted.
// This is what imposes uniqueness.
{
std::unique_ptr<int> p(new int);
// ERROR.
//std::unique_ptr<int> p2(p);
// Consequence: for loops over vectors must use references &.
// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20292682/iterating-through-vectorunique-ptrmytype-using-c11-for-loops
{
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>> is;
for (auto& i : is) {}
// ERROR.
//for (auto i : is) {}
}
// Must move glvalues.
// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3283778/why-can-i-not-push-back-a-unique-ptr-into-a-vector
{
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>> is;
std::unique_ptr<int> i(new int(1));
is.push_back(std::move(i));
assert(*is.back() == 1);
// Without intermediate variable, we don't need to move, because it is an rvalue,
// and unique_ptr does have an move constructor.
is.push_back(std::unique_ptr<int>(new int(2)));
assert(*is.back() == 2);
// Analogously, must move containers instead of copy.
{
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>> is;
is.push_back(std::unique_ptr<int>(new int(1)));
//std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>> is2(is);
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>> is2(std::move(is));
assert(*(is2.front()) == 1);
}
}
}
/*
# reset
Explicit destruction of pointer. Equivalent to `delete`.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25609457/unique-ptr-explicit-delete
*/
{
Base::count = 0;
std::unique_ptr<Base> p = std::unique_ptr<Base>(new Base(1));
assert(Base::count == 1);
p.reset();
assert(Base::count == 0);
}
/*
# unique_ptr function argments
- transfering ownership TODO
- use raw pointeres on the interface, and convert it to unique_ptr inside callee
- if you already have an unique_ptr, release() it
- this allows you to not tie down to a specific smart pointer on the function interface
- use unique_ptr on interface and move on caller.
- Advantage: unique_ptr on interface documents ownership transfer,
and prevents callee from passing non new pointer to it by mistake.
- TODO for not transfering ownership:
- `const & std::unique_ptr<T>`
- `get()`. Simple and efficient. But how to use it for containers like `vector<std::unique_ptr>`?
- `T&` on function, `*t` on caller. Looks good!
- http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8114276/how-do-i-pass-a-unique-ptr-argument-to-a-constructor-or-a-functionhttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/8114276/how-do-i-pass-a-unique-ptr-argument-to-a-constructor-or-a-function
- http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11277249/how-to-pass-stdunique-ptr-around
*/
{
}
// Return unique_ptr from function.
{
{
Base::count = 0;
auto base = return_unique_ptr();
assert(Base::count == 1);
assert(base->i == 1);
}
assert(Base::count == 0);
}
#if __cplusplus >= 201402L
// # make_unique
// Does new and puts it inside unique_ptr. Very convenient.
{
{
Base::count = 0;
auto base = std::make_unique<Base>(1);
assert(Base::count == 1);
assert(base->i == 1);
}
assert(Base::count == 0);
}
#endif
}