46

I got a library that internally uses Boost's version of shared_ptr and exposes only those. For my application, I'd like to use std::shared_ptr whenever possible though. Sadly, there is no direct conversion between the two types, as the ref counting stuff is implementation dependent.

Is there any way to have both a boost::shared_ptr and a std::shared_ptr share the same ref-count-object? Or at least steal the ref-count from the Boost version and only let the stdlib version take care of it?

1
  • 1
    I do not see reasons to mix memory management from different library. There might be internal objects link to the boost:shared_ptr and if you take over the ref-count, you will need to make sure the update is reflected on your std::shared_ptr Commented Jun 13, 2011 at 5:56

2 Answers 2

40

Based on janm's response at first I did this:

template<class T> std::shared_ptr<T> to_std(const boost::shared_ptr<T> &p) {
    return std::shared_ptr<T>(p.get(), [p](...) mutable { p.reset(); });
}

template<class T> boost::shared_ptr<T> to_boost(const std::shared_ptr<T> &p) {
    return boost::shared_ptr<T>(p.get(), [p](...) mutable { p.reset(); });
}

But then I realized I could do this instead:

namespace {
    template<class SharedPointer> struct Holder {
        SharedPointer p;

        Holder(const SharedPointer &p) : p(p) {}
        Holder(const Holder &other) : p(other.p) {}
        Holder(Holder &&other) : p(std::move(other.p)) {}

        void operator () (...) { p.reset(); }
    };
}

template<class T> std::shared_ptr<T> to_std_ptr(const boost::shared_ptr<T> &p) {
    typedef Holder<std::shared_ptr<T>> H;
    if(H *h = boost::get_deleter<H>(p)) {
        return h->p;
    } else {
        return std::shared_ptr<T>(p.get(), Holder<boost::shared_ptr<T>>(p));
    }
}

template<class T> boost::shared_ptr<T> to_boost_ptr(const std::shared_ptr<T> &p){
    typedef Holder<boost::shared_ptr<T>> H;
    if(H * h = std::get_deleter<H>(p)) {
        return h->p;
    } else {
        return boost::shared_ptr<T>(p.get(), Holder<std::shared_ptr<T>>(p));
    }
}

This solution leaves no reason for not using it without restrictions since you get the original pointer back if you convert back to the original type.

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

@dyp Holder version looks fine. Reset occurs on operator()
33

Update to an "off the top of my head" answer, almost eleven years later:

As pointed out in this answer, an implementation is allowed to extend the lifetime the deleter beyond the lifetime of the shared_ptr. For example, until after all weak_ptr instances are also destroyed. This would cause a problem where the presence of weak_ptr instances prevent the destruction of the underlying object, obviously a problem.

To avoid this, either use the approach in the answer by @Fozi with an explicit call to reset(), or the aliasing constructor approach in the linked answer.

Original Answer:

You can carry the boost::shared_ptr "inside" the std::shared_ptr by using the destructor to carry the reference around:

template<typename T>
void do_release(typename boost::shared_ptr<T> const&, T*)
{
}

template<typename T>
typename std::shared_ptr<T> to_std(typename boost::shared_ptr<T> const& p)
{
    return
        std::shared_ptr<T>(
                p.get(),
                boost::bind(&do_release<T>, p, _1));

}

The only real reason to do this is if you have a bunch of code that expects std::shared_ptr<T>.

3 Comments

To be honest, at first I didn't exactly understand what you meant with "carry the reference arond", but this is indeed a very neat was, thanks. :)
@Xeo TIL that there is a problem with unspecified lifetime, especially in the presence of weak_ptrs: stackoverflow.com/a/71575543/85371
@sehe Updated to point out the issue.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.