> Note that our use case is in a single-threaded context. Hence, the word safe should not be interpreted as ‘thread-safe.’ Single-threadedness greatly simplifies the design; we need not reason about race conditions such as one where an object is simultaneously moved and accessed on different threads. Extending the design to a thread-safe one is left as an exercise to the reader.
Why intentionally design a worse alternative to std::weak_ptr which has been around since C++11??
They never mention std::weak_ptr which makes me think they aren't aware of it.. yes this looks pretty useless and unsafe(isn't everything multi-threaded these days..)
(Author here.) That is a good question. For our use case, we in fact do not use std::shared_ptr in our implementation, but instead a single-threaded shared_ptr-like class that has no atomics (to avoid cross-core contention).
However, when I wrote the blog-post, I replaced that not-so-well-known class by std::shared_ptr for the sake of accessibility of the blogpost for a general c++ audience, but by doing so, it indeed becomes a natural question to ask why one wouldn't use std::weak_ptr (which I hadn't realised when writing the post).
One reason why this design can still be beneficial when using the standard std::shared_ptr in its implementation, is when you do not want to manage the pointee object by a std::shared_ptr (which is a requirement if you want to use std::weak_ptr). E.g., if you want to ensure that multiple objects of that type are laid out next to each other in memory, instead of scattered around the heap.
Another goal of the post is to show this idea, namely to use a shared_ptr<T*> (instead of shared_ptr<T>), which is kind of non-standard, but can be (as I hope I convinced you) sometimes useful.
We purposefully didn't use shared_ptr and hence weak_ptr. With these, it is all too easy to construct the "bad" version which has the stub reference count and pointer stored far away in memory from the object itself requiring a double dereference to access the object which is bad for cache performance. Instead we derived off a shareable class that has the reference count to make sure it is close in memory.
With make_shared it's guaranteed to be a single allocation these days so you shouldn't necessarily have cache locality problems. I do think there are benefits to things being intrusively recounted as you save 8 bytes per object. And if you give up a weak count you can save even more.
That was mostly meant as irony/a joke, but I admit that's not really clear from the text...
For the sake of clarity, if you need thread-safety, probably best to just use std::shared_ptr / std::weak_ptr.
I’ve recently read the third edition of Bjarne’s “A tour of c++” (which is actually a good read). I feel the author of this post could benefit from doing so also.
For situations like this, I prefer a generational index where the lookup fails if the object has been destroyed. For context, the "manager" that holds the objects referred to typically has a lifetime of the whole program.
This just seems intentionally bad to show where Rust would be better. This is yet another example of what I call "corner-case" instruction, which I define as, "I am going to take an obviously terrible corner-case that shows what an awful developer can do that will break a program, then demonstrate my brilliance by introducing my (highly-biased) opinionated point I wanted to make..."
In this particular case, it was subtly, Rust is preferred because it doesn't allow unsafe memory operations such as the one demonstrated. Really, all it demonstrates is that you can create really bad C++.
You could implement the same smart pointer library in rust and it would be fine. Rust doesn't magically solve the problems around defined destruction ordering when using ref counted pointers. I try very hard to model my usage of Rc or Arc to be very similar to what this article is trying to showcase for basically the same reasons I imagine they do. I'm actually inspired to write a crate with these semantics to make it harder to mess it up.
This sounds very similar to how base::WeakPtr works in Chromium [0]. It's a reasonable design, but it only works as long as the pointer is only accessed from the same thread it is created.
Hardened std::span just adds checks during operator[] that you would normally only happen in at(). Same for operator* and operator->. It doesn't really have any relevance for the problem the article is written about.
One time, I was patching up some buggy code that had dangling pointers just to stop it from crashing. My approach was to check if the vtable was correct. Sure, actually fixing the underlying bug would have been a lot better, but this was enough to just stop it from crashing.
Interesting, but I see no real use-case where it may be useful. Usually raw pointers/references are used to pass a value to a function without ownership transfer and it's almost always true that this value remains valid until callee isn't returned. Other use-cases, like putting such pointer into a struct are dangerous and one should minimize doing this.
shared_ptr will bite you in the rear if you ever need to have well defined semantics about when an object is destructed. It has a lot of good use cases, especially in async code bases where you want to effectively cancel callbacks if the captured variable has gone away. Proactively cancelation is much more difficult by comparison. There are other ways to achieve this result but the one used in the article is a fine choice.
20 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 51.2 ms ] threadWhy intentionally design a worse alternative to std::weak_ptr which has been around since C++11??
One reason why this design can still be beneficial when using the standard std::shared_ptr in its implementation, is when you do not want to manage the pointee object by a std::shared_ptr (which is a requirement if you want to use std::weak_ptr). E.g., if you want to ensure that multiple objects of that type are laid out next to each other in memory, instead of scattered around the heap.
Another goal of the post is to show this idea, namely to use a shared_ptr<T*> (instead of shared_ptr<T>), which is kind of non-standard, but can be (as I hope I convinced you) sometimes useful.
We were happy to use unique_ptr, however.
Doesn't get much glibber than that!
In this particular case, it was subtly, Rust is preferred because it doesn't allow unsafe memory operations such as the one demonstrated. Really, all it demonstrates is that you can create really bad C++.
[0] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/base/m...