Search Results

Search found 519 results on 21 pages for 'ptr'.

Page 5/21 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Is this a correct implementation of singleton C++?

    - by Kamal
    class A{ static boost::shared_ptr<A> getInstance(){ if(pA==NULL){ pA = new A(); } return boost::shared_ptr(pA); } //destructor ~A(){ delete pA; pA=NULL; } private: A(){ //some initialization code } //private assigment and copy constructors A(A const& copy); // Not Implemented A& operator=(A const& copy); // Not Implemented static A* pA; }; A* A::pA = NULL;

    Read the article

  • How to handle 'this' pointer in constructor?

    - by Kyle
    I have objects which create other child objects within their constructors, passing 'this' so the child can save a pointer back to its parent. I use boost::shared_ptr extensively in my programming as a safer alternative to std::auto_ptr or raw pointers. So the child would have code such as shared_ptr<Parent>, and boost provides the shared_from_this() method which the parent can give to the child. My problem is that shared_from_this() cannot be used in a constructor, which isn't really a crime because 'this' should not be used in a constructor anyways unless you know what you're doing and don't mind the limitations. Google's C++ Style Guide states that constructors should merely set member variables to their initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit Init() method. This solves the 'this-in-constructor' problem as well as a few others as well. What bothers me is that people using your code now must remember to call Init() every time they construct one of your objects. The only way I can think of to enforce this is by having an assertion that Init() has already been called at the top of every member function, but this is tedious to write and cumbersome to execute. Are there any idioms out there that solve this problem at any step along the way?

    Read the article

  • How to attach boost::shared_ptr (or another smart pointer) to reference counter of object's parent?

    - by Checkers
    I remember encountering this concept before, but can't find it in Google now. If I have an object of type A, which directly embeds an object of type B: class A { B b; }; How can I have a smart pointer to B, e. g. boost::shared_ptr<B>, but use reference count of A? Assume an instance of A itself is heap-allocated I can safely get its shared count using, say, enable_shared_from_this.

    Read the article

  • Is boost shared_ptr <XXX> thread safe?

    - by sxingfeng
    I have a question about boost :: shared_ptr. There are lots of thread. class CResource { xxxxxx } class CResourceBase { public: void SetResource(shared_ptr<CResource> res) { m_Res = res; } shared_ptr<CResource> GetResource() { return m_Res; } private: shared_ptr<CResource> m_Res; } CResourceBase base; //---------------------------------------------- Thread A: while (true) { ...... shared_ptr<CResource> nowResource = base.GetResource(); nowResource.doSomeThing(); ... } Thread B: shared_ptr<CResource> nowResource; base.SetResource(nowResource); ... //----------------------------------------------------------- If thread A do not care the nowResource is the newest . Will this part of code have problem? I mean when ThreadB do not SetResource completely, Thread A get a wrong smart point by GetResource? Another question : what does thread-safe mean? If I do not care about whether the resource is newest, will the shared_ptr nowResource crash the program when the nowResource is released or will the problem destroy the shared_point?

    Read the article

  • How to declare array of 2D array pointers and access them?

    - by vikramtheone
    Hi Guys, How can I declare an 2D array of 2D Pointers? And later access the individual array elements of the 2D arrays. Is my approach correct? main() { int i, j; int **array[10][10]; int **ptr = NULL; for(i=0;i<10;i++) { for(j=0j<10;j++) { alloc_2D(&ptr, 10, 10); array[i][j] = ptr; } } //After I do this, how can I access the individual 2D array //and then the individual elements of the 2D arrays? } void alloc_2D(float ***memory, unsigned int rows, unsigned int cols) { float **ptr; *memory = NULL; ptr = malloc(rows * sizeof(float*)); if(ptr == NULL) { status = ERROR; printf("\nERROR: Memory allocation failed!"); } else { int i; for(i = 0; i< rows; i++) { ptr[i] = malloc(cols * sizeof(float)); if(ptr[i]==NULL) { status = ERROR; printf("\nERROR: Memory allocation failed!"); } } } *memory = ptr; }

    Read the article

  • Trouble assigning a tr1::shared_ptr

    - by Max
    I've got a class that has a tr1::shared_ptr as a member, like so: class Foo { std::tr1::shared_ptr<TCODBsp> bsp; void Bar(); } In member function Bar, I try to assign it like this: bsp = newTCODBsp(x,y,w,h); g++ then gives me this error no match for ‘operator=’ in ‘((yarl::mapGen::MapGenerator*)this)->yarl::mapGen::MapGenerator::bsp = (operator new(40u), (<statement>, ((TCODBsp*)<anonymous>)))’ /usr/include/c++/4.4/tr1/shared_ptr.h:834: note: candidates are: std::tr1::shared_ptr<TCODBsp>& std::tr1::shared_ptr<TCODBsp>::operator=(const std::tr1::shared_ptr<TCODBsp>&) in my code, Foo is actually yarl::mapGen::MapGenerator. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Casting a container of shared_ptr

    - by Jamie Cook
    Hi all, I have a method void foo(list<shared_ptr<Base>>& myList); Which I'm trying to call with a two different types of lists, one of DerivedClass1 and one of DerivedClass2 list<shared_ptr<DerivedClass1>> myList1; foo(myList1); list<shared_ptr<DerivedClass2>> myList2; foo(myList2); However this obviously generates a compiler error error: a reference of type "std::list<boost::shared_ptr<Base>, std::allocator<boost::shared_ptr<Base>>> &" (not const-qualified) cannot be initialized with a value of type "std::list<boost::shared_ptr<DerivedClass1>, std::allocator<boost::shared_ptr<DerivedClass1>>>" Is there any easy way to cast a container of shared_ptr? Of alternate containers that can accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • `enable_shared_from_this` has a non-virtual destructor

    - by Shtééf
    I have a pet project with which I experiment with new features of the upcoming C++0x standard. While I have experience with C, I'm fairly new to C++. To train myself into best practices, (besides reading a lot), I have enabled some strict compiler parameters (using GCC 4.4.1): -std=c++0x -Werror -Wall -Winline -Weffc++ -pedantic-errors This has worked fine for me. Until now, I have been able to resolve all obstacles. However, I have a need for enable_shared_from_this, and this is causing me problems. I get the following warning (error, in my case) when compiling my code (probably triggered by -Weffc++): base class ‘class std::enable_shared_from_this<Package>’ has a non-virtual destructor So basically, I'm a bit bugged by this implementation of enable_shared_from_this, because: A destructor of a class that is intended for subclassing should always be virtual, IMHO. The destructor is empty, why have it at all? I can't imagine anyone would want to delete their instance by reference to enable_shared_from_this. But I'm looking for ways to deal with this, so my question is really, is there a proper way to deal with this? And: am I correct in thinking that this destructor is bogus, or is there a real purpose to it?

    Read the article

  • Multiset of shared_ptrs as a dynamic priority queue: Concept and practice

    - by Sarah
    I was using a vector-based priority queue typedef std::priority_queue< Event, vector< Event >, std::greater< Event > > EventPQ; to manage my Event objects. Now my simulation has to be able to find and delete certain Event objects not at the top of the queue. I'd like to know if my planned work-around can do what I need it to, and if I have the syntax right. I'd also like to know if dramatically better solutions exist. My plan is to make EventPQ a multiset of smart pointers to Event objects: typedef std::multi_set< boost::shared_ptr< Event > > EventPQ; I'm borrowing functions of the Event class from a related post on a multimap priority queue. // Event.h #include <cstdlib> using namespace std; #include <set> #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> class Event; typedef std::multi_set< boost::shared_ptr< Event > > EventPQ; class Event { public: Event( double t, int eid, int hid ); ~Event(); void add( EventPQ& q ); void remove(); bool operator < ( const Event & rhs ) const { return ( time < rhs.time ); } bool operator > ( const Event & rhs ) const { return ( time > rhs.time ); } double time; int eventID; int hostID; EventPQ* mq; EventPQ::iterator mIt; }; // Event.cpp Event::Event( double t, int eid, int hid ) { time = t; eventID = eid; hostID = hid; } Event::~Event() {} void Event::add( EventPQ& q ) { mq = &q; mIt = q.insert( boost::shared_ptr<Event>(this) ); } void Event::remove() { mq.erase( mIt ); mq = 0; mIt = EventPQ::iterator(); } I was hoping that by making EventPQ a container of pointers, I could avoid wasting time copying Events into the container and avoid accidentally editing the wrong copy. Would it be dramatically easier to store the Events themselves in EventPQ instead? Does it make more sense to remove the time keys from Event objects and use them instead as keys in a multimap? Assuming the current implementation seems okay, my questions are: Do I need to specify how to sort on the pointers, rather than the objects, or does the multiset automatically know to sort on the objects pointed to? If I have a shared_ptr ptr1 to an Event that also has a pointer in the EventPQ container, how do I find and delete the corresponding pointer in EventPQ? Is it enough to .find( ptr1 ), or do I instead have to find by the key (time)? Is the Event::remove() sufficient for removing the pointer in the EventPQ container? There's a small chance multiple events could be created with the same time (obviously implied in the use of multiset). If the find() works on event times, to avoid accidentally deleting the wrong event, I was planning to throw in a further check on eventID and hostID. Does this seem reasonable? (Dumb syntax question) In Event.h, is the declaration of dummy class Event;, then the EventPQ typedef, and then the real class Event declaration appropriate? I'm obviously an inexperienced programmer with very spotty background--this isn't for homework. Would love suggestions and explanations. Please let me know if any part of this is confusing. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • C++ destructor problem with boost::scoped_ptr

    - by bb-generation
    I have a question about the following code: #include <iostream> #include <boost/scoped_ptr.hpp> class Interface { }; class A : public Interface { public: A() { std::cout << "A()" << std::endl; } virtual ~A() { std::cout << "~A()" << std::endl; } }; Interface* get_a() { A* a = new A; return a; } int main() { { std::cout << "1" << std::endl; boost::scoped_ptr<Interface> x(get_a()); std::cout << "2" << std::endl; } std::cout << "3" << std::endl; } It creates the following output: 1 A() 2 3 As you can see, it doesn't call the destructor of A. The only way I see to get the destructor of A being called, is to add a destructor for the Interface class like this: virtual ~Interface() { } But I really want to avoid any Implementation in my Interface class and virtual ~Interface() = 0; doesn't work (produces some linker errors complaining about a non existing implementation of ~Interface(). So my question is: What do I have to change in order to make the destructor being called, but (if possible) leave the Interface as an Interface (only abstract methods).

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the boost::shared_ptr -> operator inlined?

    - by Alan
    Since boost::shared_ptr could be called very frequently and simply returns a pointer, isn't the -> operator a good candidate for being inlined? T * operator-> () const // never throws { BOOST_ASSERT(px != 0); return px; } Would a good compiler automatically inline this anyway? Should I lose any sleep over this? :-)

    Read the article

  • Which libraries use the "We Know Where You Live" optimization for std::make_shared?

    - by KnowItAllWannabe
    Over two years ago, Stephan T. Lavavej described a space-saving optimization he implemented in Microsoft's implementation of std::make_shared, and I know from speaking with him that Microsoft has nothing against other library implementations adopting this optimization. If you know for sure whether other libraries (e.g., for Gnu C++, Clang, Intel C++, plus Boost (for boost::make_shared)) have adopted this implementation, please contribute an answer. I don't have ready access to that many make_shared implementations, nor am I wild about digging into the bowels of the ones I have to see if they've implemented the WKWYL optimization, but I'm hoping that SO readers know the answers for some libraries off-hand. I know from looking at the code that as of Boost 1.52, the WKWYL optimization had not been implemented, but Boost is now up to version 1.55. Note that this optimization is different from std::make_shared's ability to avoid a dedicated heap allocation for the reference count used by std::shared_ptr. For a discussion of the difference between WKWYL and that optimication, consult this question.

    Read the article

  • shared_ptr as class member

    - by idimba
    It's common to declared contained objects as a pointers to that class, while "forward declarating" them in header file. This in order to reduce physical dependencies in code. For example class B; // forward declaration class A { private: B* pB; }; Would it be good idea to declare such a member as shared_ptr, instead of naked pointer? I would prefer scoped_ptr, but AFAIKit it won't be in standard.

    Read the article

  • Force an object to be allocated on the heap

    - by Warren Seine
    A C++ class I'm writing uses shared_from_this() to return a valid boost::shared_ptr<>. Besides, I don't want to manage memory for this kind of object. At the moment, I'm not restricting the way the user allocates the object, which causes an error if shared_from_this() is called on a stack-allocated object. I'd like to force the object to be allocated with new and managed by a smart pointer, no matter how the user declares it. I thought it could be done through a proxy or an overloaded new operator, but I can't find a proper way of doing that. Is there a common design pattern for such usage? If it's not possible, how can I test it at compile time?

    Read the article

  • Iterating through boost ptr_vector

    - by Ockonal
    Hello, I have a ptr_vector list of my own objects. Something like this: boost::ptr_vector<SomeClass> *list; list.push_back(new SomeClass()>; ... BOOST_FOREACH(SomeClass *tempObj, list) // [x] { tempObj->... } >‘boost::ptr_vector<SomeClass>*’ is not a class, struct, or union type

    Read the article

  • Why is std::tr1::shared_ptr<>.reset() so expensive?

    - by Paul Oyster
    Profiling some code that heavily uses shared_ptrs, I discovered that reset() was surprisingly expensive. For example: struct Test { int i; Test() { this->i = 0; } Test(int i) { this->i = i; } } ; ... auto t = make_shared<Test>(1); ... t.reset(somePointerToATestObject); Tracing the reset() in the last line (under VC++ 2010), I discovered that it creates a new reference-counting object. Is there a cheaper way, that reuses the existing ref-count and does not bother the heap?

    Read the article

  • Why it's can be compiled in GNU/C++, can't compiled in VC++2010 RTM?

    - by volnet
    #include #include #include #include "copy_of_auto_ptr.h" #ifdef _MSC_VER #pragma message("#include ") #include // http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Diagnostic-Pragmas.html#Diagnostic-Pragmas #endif /* case 1-4 is the requirement of the auto_ptr. which form http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/020163371X/autoptrupdate/auto_ptr_update.html */ /* case 1. (1) Direct-initialization, same type, e.g. */ std::auto_ptr source_int() { // return std::auto_ptr(new int(3)); std::auto_ptr tmp(new int(3)); return tmp; } /* case 2. (2) Copy-initialization, same type, e.g. */ void sink_int(std::auto_ptr p) { std::cout source_derived() { // return std::auto_ptr(new Derived()); std::auto_ptr tmp(new Derived()); return tmp; } /* case 4. (4) Copy-initialization, base-from-derived, e.g. */ void sink_base( std::auto_ptr p) { p-go(); } int main(void) { /* // auto_ptr */ // case 1. // auto_ptr std::auto_ptr p_int(source_int()); std::cout p_derived(source_derived()); p_derived-go(); // case 4. // auto_ptr sink_base(source_derived()); return 0; } In Eclipse(GNU C++.exe -v gcc version 3.4.5 (mingw-vista special r3)) it's two compile error: Description Resource Path Location Type initializing argument 1 of void sink_base(std::auto_ptr<Base>)' from result ofstd::auto_ptr<_Tp::operator std::auto_ptr<_Tp1() [with _Tp1 = Base, _Tp = Derived]' auto_ptr_ref_research.cpp auto_ptr_ref_research/auto_ptr_ref_research 190 C/C++ Problem Description Resource Path Location Type no matching function for call to `std::auto_ptr::auto_ptr(std::auto_ptr)' auto_ptr_ref_research.cpp auto_ptr_ref_research/auto_ptr_ref_research 190 C/C++ Problem But it's right in VS2010 RTM. Questions: Which compiler stand for the ISO C++ standard? The content of case 4 is the problem "auto_ptr & auto_ptr_ref want to resolve?"

    Read the article

  • Custom deleters for std::shared_ptrs

    - by Kristian D'Amato
    Is it possible to use a custom deleter after creating a std::shared_ptr without using new? My problem is that object creation is handled by a factory class and its constructors & destructors are protected, which gives a compile error, and I don't want to use new because of its drawbacks. To elaborate: I prefer to create shared pointers like this, which doesn't let you set a custom deleter (I think): auto sp1 = make_shared<Song>(L"The Beatles", L"Im Happy Just to Dance With You"); Or I can create them like this, which does let met set a deleter through an argument: auto sp2(new Song, MyDeleterFunc); But the second one uses new, which AFAIK isn't as efficient as the top sort of allocation. Maybe this is clearer: is it possible to get the benefits of make_shared<> as well as a custom deleter? Would that mean having to write an allocator?

    Read the article

  • Adding and sorting a linked list in C

    - by user1202963
    In my assignment, I have to write a function that takes as arguments a pointer to a "LNode" structure and an integer argument. Then, I have to not only add that integer into the linked list, but also put place it so that the list is in proper ascending order. I've tried several various attempts at this, and this is my code as of posting. LNode* AddItem(LNode *headPtr, int newItem) { auto LNode *ptr = headPtr; ptr = malloc(sizeof(LNode)); if (headPtr == NULL) { ptr->value = newItem; ptr->next = headPtr; return ptr; } else { while (headPtr->value > newItem || ptr->next != NULL) { printf("While\n"); // This is simply to let me know how many times the loop runs headPtr = headPtr->next; } ptr->value = newItem; ptr->next = headPtr; return ptr; } } // end of "AddItem" When I run it, and try to insert say a 5 and then a 3, the 5 gets inserted, but then the while loop runs once and I get a segmentation fault. Also I cannot change the arguments as it's part of a skeletal code for this project. Thanks to anyone who can help. If it helps this is what the structure looks like typedef struct LNode { int value; struct LNode *next; } LNode;

    Read the article

  • C++ volatile required when spinning on boost::shared_ptr operator bool()?

    - by JaredC
    I have two threads referencing the same boost::shared_ptr: boost::shared_ptr<Widget> shared; On thread is spinning, waiting for the other thread to reset the boost::shared_ptr: while(shared) boost::thread::yield(); And at some point the other thread will call: shared.reset(); My question is whether or not I need to declare the shared pointer as volatile to prevent the compiler from optimizing the call to shared.operator bool() out of the loop and never detecting the change? I know that if I were simply looping on a variable, waiting for it to reach 0 I would need volatile, but I'm not sure if boost::shared_ptr is implemented in such a way that it is not necessary here.

    Read the article

  • Boost shared_ptr use_count function

    - by photo_tom
    My application problem is the following - I have a large structure foo. Because these are large and for memory management reasons, we do not wish to delete them when processing on the data is complete. We are storing them in std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<foo>>. My question is related to knowing when all processing is complete. First decision is that we do not want any of the other application code to mark a complete flag in the structure because there are multiple execution paths in the program and we cannot predict which one is the last. So in our implementation, once processing is complete, we delete all copies of boost::shared_ptr<foo>> except for the one in the vector. This will drop the reference counter in the shared_ptr to 1. Is it practical to use shared_ptr.use_count() to see if it is equal to 1 to know when all other parts of my app are done with the data. One additional reason I'm asking the question is that the boost documentation on the shared pointer shared_ptr recommends not using "use_count" for production code.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >