2009/3/11 ZaeX <zaex...@gmail.com>:
> Hi,Roman:
>
> I have tried adding call policy on my constructor, but I'm really no good at
> this.
> I have tried all the combinations below but none of them work:
>
> init<shared_ptr<A> const& >()[with_custodian_and_ward_postcall<0, 2> >()]
> init<shared_ptr<A> const& >()[with_custodian_and_ward_postcall<1, 2> >()]
> init<shared_ptr<A> const& >()[return_internal_reference<1,
> with_custodian_and_ward<1, 2> >()]
> init<shared_ptr<A> const& >()[return_internal_reference<1,
> with_custodian_and_ward<0, 2> >()]
>
> Could you give some more advice on this?
> P.S.:
> I cannot modify the code back to use shared_ptr by value here, I have to
> break cyclic reference. And I think weak_ptr is no good idea, if I lock it
> 60 times per second for each object, I guess it would be an impact on
> performance.
I don't know for sure, how to solve this problem. I can propose
work-around, which may be will work for you.
In your case, you have to keep shared_ptr<A> somewhere, until instance
of B will die. So, you already do some kind of memory management.
I suggest you to change your code as following:
struct no_delete_a{
void operator(A*){}
};
class A{};
class B
{
private:
shared_ptr<A> const m_ptr;
public:
B(shared_ptr<A> const& ptr):m_ptr(ptr.get(), no_delete_a() )
{cout<<m_ptr.get()<<endl;}
void ShowPtr(cout<<m_ptr.get()<<endl;)
}
In short to use "shared_ptr" custom deleter functionality.
You don't hurt performance and can switch to use "shared_ptr by
value"( and not to hurt your self :-) )
HTH
--
Roman Yakovenko
C++ Python language binding
http://www.language-binding.net/
_______________________________________________
Cplusplus-sig mailing list
Cplusplus-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
