shared_ptr and weak_ptr differences

by

Let me repeat your question: “My question, how cyclic data structures makes reference count above zero, kindly request to show with example in C++ program. How the problem is solved by weak_ptrs again with example please.”

The problem occurs with C++ code like this (conceptually):

class A { shared_ptr<B> b; ... };
class B { shared_ptr<A> a; ... };
shared_ptr<A> x(new A);  // +1
x->b = new B;            // +1
x->b->a = x;             // +1
// Ref count of 'x' is 2.
// Ref count of 'x->b' is 1.
// When 'x' leaves the scope, there will be a memory leak:
// 2 is decremented to 1, and so both ref counts will be 1.
// (Memory is deallocated only when ref count drops to 0)

To answer the second part of your question: It is mathematically impossible for reference counting to deal with cycles. Therefore, a weak_ptr (which is basically just a stripped down version of shared_ptr) cannot be used to solve the cycle problem – the programmer is solving the cycle problem.

To solve it, the programmer needs to be aware of the ownership relationship among the objects, or needs to invent an ownership relationship if no such ownership exists naturally.

The above C++ code can be changed so that A owns B:

class A { shared_ptr<B> b; ... };
class B { weak_ptr<A>   a; ... };
shared_ptr<A> x(new A); // +1
x->b = new B;           // +1
x->b->a = x;            // No +1 here
// Ref count of 'x' is 1.
// Ref count of 'x->b' is 1.
// When 'x' leaves the scope, its ref count will drop to 0.
// While destroying it, ref count of 'x->b' will drop to 0.
// So both A and B will be deallocated.

A crucial question is: Can weak_ptr be used in case the programmer cannot tell the ownership relationship and cannot establish any static ownership because of lack of privilege or lack of information?

The answer is: If ownership among objects is unclear, weak_ptr cannot help. If there is a cycle, the programmer has to find it and break it. An alternative remedy is to use a programming language with full garbage collection (such as: Java, C#, Go, Haskell), or to use a conservative (=imperfect) garbage collector which works with C/C++ (such as: Boehm GC).

More Related Contents:

  1. weak_ptr, make_shared and memory deallocation
  2. How do I call ::std::make_shared on a class with only protected or private constructors?
  3. shared_ptr to an array : should it be used?
  4. Difference in make_shared and normal shared_ptr in C++
  5. Differences between unique_ptr and shared_ptr [duplicate]
  6. Why isn’t there a std::shared_ptr specialisation?
  7. Why do std::shared_ptr work
  8. Should we pass a shared_ptr by reference or by value?
  9. Passing shared pointers as arguments
  10. std::shared_ptr initialization: make_shared() vs shared_ptr(new Foo) [duplicate]
  11. Passing shared_ptr as shared_ptr
  12. Where is shared_ptr?
  13. std::shared_ptr thread safety explained
  14. Should I use shared_ptr or unique_ptr
  15. What is the difference between an empty and a null std::shared_ptr in C++?
  16. How do shared pointers work?
  17. Why would I std::move an std::shared_ptr?
  18. Why does unique_ptr take two template parameters when shared_ptr only takes one?
  19. What is the cyclic dependency issue with shared_ptr?
  20. Does C++11 unique_ptr and shared_ptr able to convert to each other’s type?
  21. About thread-safety of weak_ptr
  22. How to typedef a template class? [duplicate]
  23. Using C++ base class constructors?
  24. C++ std::tuple order of destruction
  25. Why can’t std::function bind to C-style variadic functions?
  26. Why the sequence-operation algorithms predicates are passed by copy?
  27. Range based for loop in function which passes an array as value [duplicate]
  28. C++11 Implementation of Spinlock using header “
  29. How to assert if a std::mutex is locked?
  30. When can we omit the return type in a C++11 lambda?

Leave a Comment