Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?Why use pointers?Pretty-print C++ STL containersC++ pointers local in functionsHow C++ reference worksWhy is reading lines from stdin much slower in C++ than Python?Why should I use a pointer rather than the object itself?Pointers as Function Parameters ExampleReturn class object pointer from another classwhy should we use std::move semantic with unique pointers?Why does my object appear to be on the heap without using `new`?
The Two and the One
Example of a continuous function that don't have a continuous extension
What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?
What typically incentivizes a professor to change jobs to a lower ranking university?
"You are your self first supporter", a more proper way to say it
Arthur Somervell: 1000 Exercises - Meaning of this notation
Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)
Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?
Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?
Is it possible to do 50 km distance without any previous training?
Smoothness of finite-dimensional functional calculus
What does "Puller Prush Person" mean?
What's the point of deactivating Num Lock on login screens?
strToHex ( string to its hex representation as string)
Font hinting is lost in Chrome-like browsers (for some languages )
Does the fruit of Mantra Japa automatically go to Indra if Japa Samarpana Mantra is not chanted?
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?
Why can't I see bouncing of a switch on an oscilloscope?
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
Can divisibility rules for digits be generalized to sum of digits
Mathematical cryptic clues
How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup?
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
Why use pointers?Pretty-print C++ STL containersC++ pointers local in functionsHow C++ reference worksWhy is reading lines from stdin much slower in C++ than Python?Why should I use a pointer rather than the object itself?Pointers as Function Parameters ExampleReturn class object pointer from another classwhy should we use std::move semantic with unique pointers?Why does my object appear to be on the heap without using `new`?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class Class
public:
Class(int a): int_(a)std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
~Class()std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
int int_;
;
int main()
Class a(4);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr2 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr3 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::cout << ptr->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr2->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr3->int_ << std::endl;
return 0;
Output:
constr
4
4
4
destr
destr
destr
destr
c++ pointers unique-ptr
add a comment |
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class Class
public:
Class(int a): int_(a)std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
~Class()std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
int int_;
;
int main()
Class a(4);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr2 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr3 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::cout << ptr->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr2->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr3->int_ << std::endl;
return 0;
Output:
constr
4
4
4
destr
destr
destr
destr
c++ pointers unique-ptr
21
Copy construction.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 15:01
1
Try this:a.int_ = 5;
after you create eachunique_ptr
and before you print the contents of each pointer
– alter igel
Mar 29 at 15:08
1
Creating severalunique_ptr
to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something likeauto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get());
would create a secondstd::unique_ptr
that points to the same instance asptr
does, and that would be problematic.
– François Andrieux
Mar 29 at 15:08
Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.
– TrebledJ
Mar 30 at 14:31
add a comment |
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class Class
public:
Class(int a): int_(a)std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
~Class()std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
int int_;
;
int main()
Class a(4);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr2 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr3 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::cout << ptr->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr2->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr3->int_ << std::endl;
return 0;
Output:
constr
4
4
4
destr
destr
destr
destr
c++ pointers unique-ptr
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class Class
public:
Class(int a): int_(a)std::cout << "constr" << std::endl;
~Class()std::cout << "destr" << std::endl;
int int_;
;
int main()
Class a(4);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr2 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr3 = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
std::cout << ptr->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr2->int_ << std::endl;
std::cout << ptr3->int_ << std::endl;
return 0;
Output:
constr
4
4
4
destr
destr
destr
destr
c++ pointers unique-ptr
c++ pointers unique-ptr
edited Mar 30 at 14:25
TrebledJ
3,61921328
3,61921328
asked Mar 29 at 15:00
Lokas BeardLokas Beard
1115
1115
21
Copy construction.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 15:01
1
Try this:a.int_ = 5;
after you create eachunique_ptr
and before you print the contents of each pointer
– alter igel
Mar 29 at 15:08
1
Creating severalunique_ptr
to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something likeauto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get());
would create a secondstd::unique_ptr
that points to the same instance asptr
does, and that would be problematic.
– François Andrieux
Mar 29 at 15:08
Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.
– TrebledJ
Mar 30 at 14:31
add a comment |
21
Copy construction.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 15:01
1
Try this:a.int_ = 5;
after you create eachunique_ptr
and before you print the contents of each pointer
– alter igel
Mar 29 at 15:08
1
Creating severalunique_ptr
to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something likeauto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get());
would create a secondstd::unique_ptr
that points to the same instance asptr
does, and that would be problematic.
– François Andrieux
Mar 29 at 15:08
Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.
– TrebledJ
Mar 30 at 14:31
21
21
Copy construction.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 15:01
Copy construction.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 15:01
1
1
Try this:
a.int_ = 5;
after you create each unique_ptr
and before you print the contents of each pointer– alter igel
Mar 29 at 15:08
Try this:
a.int_ = 5;
after you create each unique_ptr
and before you print the contents of each pointer– alter igel
Mar 29 at 15:08
1
1
Creating several
unique_ptr
to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something like auto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get());
would create a second std::unique_ptr
that points to the same instance as ptr
does, and that would be problematic.– François Andrieux
Mar 29 at 15:08
Creating several
unique_ptr
to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something like auto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get());
would create a second std::unique_ptr
that points to the same instance as ptr
does, and that would be problematic.– François Andrieux
Mar 29 at 15:08
Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.
– TrebledJ
Mar 30 at 14:31
Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.
– TrebledJ
Mar 30 at 14:31
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Why not?
You are not creating multiple unique_ptr
instances pointing to the same Class
instance, but you are instead allocating three new Class
instances on the heap, copy-constructed from a
. Every unique_ptr
points to a different instance.
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
The above means: create a new instance of Class
on the heap, copy-constructed from a
, and give ownership of it to a new std::unique_ptr
instance with name ptr
.
What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.
– Jordan Motta
Mar 29 at 15:48
11
@JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png
– Vittorio Romeo
Mar 29 at 16:10
add a comment |
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
You're not allowed to do that*, so it's a good thing you're not doing that!
Don't forget, this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
is this**:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(new Class(a));
not this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);
std::make_unique
creates a thing and gives you a unique_ptr
to that thing. It does so by forwarding its arguments to the thing's constructor. Admittedly this can be confusing when you pass in the name of an existing object, leading to the copy constructor being used.
tl;dr: You're creating copies of a
.
* Well, with a no-op deleter you could do it safely, but let's save that conversation for another day…
** More or less…
1
you can prove this to yourself byptr2->_int = 6;
and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.
– Kate Gregory
Mar 29 at 16:26
Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;
) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 16:51
1
@user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 30 at 17:26
add a comment |
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
You're allowed to make multiple copies of the object, because the class is copyable.
"Unique" in unique_ptr
doesn't mean that the pointed object is the unique instance of its class. It means that no other pointer should have ownership of the pointed object. In your example, each unique pointer points to a separate instance; each of the uniquely owned by the respective pointer.
You could† violate the uniqueness like this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);
†Could: The program would be well-formed and compiler would be required to compile it. But the behaviour of the program would then be undefined, so you very much should not do that.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55420227%2fwhy-am-i-allowed-to-create-multiple-unique-pointers-from-a-single-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Why not?
You are not creating multiple unique_ptr
instances pointing to the same Class
instance, but you are instead allocating three new Class
instances on the heap, copy-constructed from a
. Every unique_ptr
points to a different instance.
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
The above means: create a new instance of Class
on the heap, copy-constructed from a
, and give ownership of it to a new std::unique_ptr
instance with name ptr
.
What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.
– Jordan Motta
Mar 29 at 15:48
11
@JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png
– Vittorio Romeo
Mar 29 at 16:10
add a comment |
Why not?
You are not creating multiple unique_ptr
instances pointing to the same Class
instance, but you are instead allocating three new Class
instances on the heap, copy-constructed from a
. Every unique_ptr
points to a different instance.
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
The above means: create a new instance of Class
on the heap, copy-constructed from a
, and give ownership of it to a new std::unique_ptr
instance with name ptr
.
What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.
– Jordan Motta
Mar 29 at 15:48
11
@JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png
– Vittorio Romeo
Mar 29 at 16:10
add a comment |
Why not?
You are not creating multiple unique_ptr
instances pointing to the same Class
instance, but you are instead allocating three new Class
instances on the heap, copy-constructed from a
. Every unique_ptr
points to a different instance.
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
The above means: create a new instance of Class
on the heap, copy-constructed from a
, and give ownership of it to a new std::unique_ptr
instance with name ptr
.
Why not?
You are not creating multiple unique_ptr
instances pointing to the same Class
instance, but you are instead allocating three new Class
instances on the heap, copy-constructed from a
. Every unique_ptr
points to a different instance.
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
The above means: create a new instance of Class
on the heap, copy-constructed from a
, and give ownership of it to a new std::unique_ptr
instance with name ptr
.
answered Mar 29 at 15:03
Vittorio RomeoVittorio Romeo
59.5k17164307
59.5k17164307
What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.
– Jordan Motta
Mar 29 at 15:48
11
@JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png
– Vittorio Romeo
Mar 29 at 16:10
add a comment |
What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.
– Jordan Motta
Mar 29 at 15:48
11
@JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png
– Vittorio Romeo
Mar 29 at 16:10
What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.
– Jordan Motta
Mar 29 at 15:48
What i don't understand is he didn't provide a copy constructor. I know that if you don't create a custom constructor, the compiler will generate for you default, copy, move, etc. But, in this case, he provided a custom constructor.
– Jordan Motta
Mar 29 at 15:48
11
11
@JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png
– Vittorio Romeo
Mar 29 at 16:10
@JordanMotta: adding a non-default constructor does not inhibit implicit generation of the copy constructor. See i.stack.imgur.com/b2VBV.png
– Vittorio Romeo
Mar 29 at 16:10
add a comment |
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
You're not allowed to do that*, so it's a good thing you're not doing that!
Don't forget, this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
is this**:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(new Class(a));
not this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);
std::make_unique
creates a thing and gives you a unique_ptr
to that thing. It does so by forwarding its arguments to the thing's constructor. Admittedly this can be confusing when you pass in the name of an existing object, leading to the copy constructor being used.
tl;dr: You're creating copies of a
.
* Well, with a no-op deleter you could do it safely, but let's save that conversation for another day…
** More or less…
1
you can prove this to yourself byptr2->_int = 6;
and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.
– Kate Gregory
Mar 29 at 16:26
Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;
) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 16:51
1
@user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 30 at 17:26
add a comment |
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
You're not allowed to do that*, so it's a good thing you're not doing that!
Don't forget, this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
is this**:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(new Class(a));
not this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);
std::make_unique
creates a thing and gives you a unique_ptr
to that thing. It does so by forwarding its arguments to the thing's constructor. Admittedly this can be confusing when you pass in the name of an existing object, leading to the copy constructor being used.
tl;dr: You're creating copies of a
.
* Well, with a no-op deleter you could do it safely, but let's save that conversation for another day…
** More or less…
1
you can prove this to yourself byptr2->_int = 6;
and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.
– Kate Gregory
Mar 29 at 16:26
Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;
) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 16:51
1
@user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 30 at 17:26
add a comment |
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
You're not allowed to do that*, so it's a good thing you're not doing that!
Don't forget, this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
is this**:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(new Class(a));
not this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);
std::make_unique
creates a thing and gives you a unique_ptr
to that thing. It does so by forwarding its arguments to the thing's constructor. Admittedly this can be confusing when you pass in the name of an existing object, leading to the copy constructor being used.
tl;dr: You're creating copies of a
.
* Well, with a no-op deleter you could do it safely, but let's save that conversation for another day…
** More or less…
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
You're not allowed to do that*, so it's a good thing you're not doing that!
Don't forget, this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr = std::make_unique<Class>(a);
is this**:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(new Class(a));
not this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);
std::make_unique
creates a thing and gives you a unique_ptr
to that thing. It does so by forwarding its arguments to the thing's constructor. Admittedly this can be confusing when you pass in the name of an existing object, leading to the copy constructor being used.
tl;dr: You're creating copies of a
.
* Well, with a no-op deleter you could do it safely, but let's save that conversation for another day…
** More or less…
edited Mar 29 at 15:23
answered Mar 29 at 15:17
Lightness Races in OrbitLightness Races in Orbit
295k54477814
295k54477814
1
you can prove this to yourself byptr2->_int = 6;
and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.
– Kate Gregory
Mar 29 at 16:26
Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;
) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 16:51
1
@user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 30 at 17:26
add a comment |
1
you can prove this to yourself byptr2->_int = 6;
and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.
– Kate Gregory
Mar 29 at 16:26
Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (Class(const Class &) =delete;
) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 16:51
1
@user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 30 at 17:26
1
1
you can prove this to yourself by
ptr2->_int = 6;
and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.– Kate Gregory
Mar 29 at 16:26
you can prove this to yourself by
ptr2->_int = 6;
and then 7 and so on. You will see that changing the Class one pointer points to has no effect on the others. They are just a bunch of copies.– Kate Gregory
Mar 29 at 16:26
Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (
Class(const Class &) =delete;
) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.– user4581301
Mar 29 at 16:51
Cunning of you to place the TD;DR version at the bottom of the answer, guaranteeing that most people will read the the full version first. Another simple proof is to remove the copy constructor (
Class(const Class &) =delete;
) the copy constructor and watch the compiler choke.– user4581301
Mar 29 at 16:51
1
1
@user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 30 at 17:26
@user4581301 Conclusions and summaries have been used for centuries. Feel free to write your own answer.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Mar 30 at 17:26
add a comment |
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
You're allowed to make multiple copies of the object, because the class is copyable.
"Unique" in unique_ptr
doesn't mean that the pointed object is the unique instance of its class. It means that no other pointer should have ownership of the pointed object. In your example, each unique pointer points to a separate instance; each of the uniquely owned by the respective pointer.
You could† violate the uniqueness like this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);
†Could: The program would be well-formed and compiler would be required to compile it. But the behaviour of the program would then be undefined, so you very much should not do that.
add a comment |
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
You're allowed to make multiple copies of the object, because the class is copyable.
"Unique" in unique_ptr
doesn't mean that the pointed object is the unique instance of its class. It means that no other pointer should have ownership of the pointed object. In your example, each unique pointer points to a separate instance; each of the uniquely owned by the respective pointer.
You could† violate the uniqueness like this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);
†Could: The program would be well-formed and compiler would be required to compile it. But the behaviour of the program would then be undefined, so you very much should not do that.
add a comment |
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
You're allowed to make multiple copies of the object, because the class is copyable.
"Unique" in unique_ptr
doesn't mean that the pointed object is the unique instance of its class. It means that no other pointer should have ownership of the pointed object. In your example, each unique pointer points to a separate instance; each of the uniquely owned by the respective pointer.
You could† violate the uniqueness like this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);
†Could: The program would be well-formed and compiler would be required to compile it. But the behaviour of the program would then be undefined, so you very much should not do that.
Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?
You're allowed to make multiple copies of the object, because the class is copyable.
"Unique" in unique_ptr
doesn't mean that the pointed object is the unique instance of its class. It means that no other pointer should have ownership of the pointed object. In your example, each unique pointer points to a separate instance; each of the uniquely owned by the respective pointer.
You could† violate the uniqueness like this:
std::unique_ptr<Class> ptr(&a);
†Could: The program would be well-formed and compiler would be required to compile it. But the behaviour of the program would then be undefined, so you very much should not do that.
edited Mar 29 at 15:25
answered Mar 29 at 15:12
eerorikaeerorika
89.2k664136
89.2k664136
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55420227%2fwhy-am-i-allowed-to-create-multiple-unique-pointers-from-a-single-object%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
21
Copy construction.
– user4581301
Mar 29 at 15:01
1
Try this:
a.int_ = 5;
after you create eachunique_ptr
and before you print the contents of each pointer– alter igel
Mar 29 at 15:08
1
Creating several
unique_ptr
to the same instance will almost certainly lead to undefined behavior, but that's not what you are doing here. Something likeauto ptr2 = std::unique_ptr<Class>(ptr.get());
would create a secondstd::unique_ptr
that points to the same instance asptr
does, and that would be problematic.– François Andrieux
Mar 29 at 15:08
Demo with user-defined copy constructor (called 3 times). Exemplifies the underlying copy construction.
– TrebledJ
Mar 30 at 14:31