Created on 2014-07-03.00:00:00 last changed 90 months ago
Proposed resolution:
This wording is relative to N4296.
Change [util.smartptr.shared.const] p29 as indicated:
template <class Y, class D> shared_ptr(unique_ptr<Y, D>&& r);[…]
-29- Effects: If r.get() == nullptr, equivalent to shared_ptr(). Otherwise, if D is not a reference type, equivalent to shared_ptr(r.release(), r.get_deleter()). Otherwise, equivalent to shared_ptr(r.release(), ref(r.get_deleter()))Equivalent to shared_ptr(r.release(), r.get_deleter()) when D is not a reference type, otherwise shared_ptr(r.release(), ref(r.get_deleter())).
[ 2015-01-18 Library reflector vote ]
The issue has been identified as Tentatively Ready based on eight votes in favour.
unique_ptr guarantees that it will not invoke its deleter if it stores a null pointer, which is useful for deleters that must not be called with a null pointer e.g.
unique_ptr<FILE, int(*)(FILE*)> fptr(file, &::fclose);
However, shared_ptr does invoke the deleter if it owns a null pointer, which is a silent change in behaviour when transferring ownership from unique_ptr to shared_ptr. That means the following leads to undefined behaviour:
std:shared_ptr<FILE> fp = std::move(fptr);
Peter Dimov's suggested fix is to construct an empty shared_ptr from a unique_ptr that contains a null pointer.
History | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | User | Action | Args |
2017-07-30 20:15:43 | admin | set | status: wp -> c++17 |
2015-05-22 18:31:21 | admin | set | status: ready -> wp |
2015-01-18 18:40:08 | admin | set | messages: + msg7216 |
2015-01-18 18:40:08 | admin | set | status: new -> ready |
2014-07-03 22:51:54 | admin | set | messages: + msg7092 |
2014-07-03 00:00:00 | admin | create |