Subject: Re: [boost] [pimpl] Mini Review
From: Sergiu Dotenco (sergiu.dotenco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-26 12:42:05
Am 26.05.2011 18:28, schrieb Artyom Beilis:
>> From: Sergiu Dotenco <sergiu.dotenco_at_[hidden]>
>>
>> Am 26.05.2011 11:22, schrieb Artyom Beilis:
>>> The only advantage I can see in boost.pimpl over scoped_ptr or auto_ptr
>>> is that it does not require explicit destructor.
>>>
>>> i.e.
>>>
>>>
>>> class Foo : boost::noncopyable {
>>> public:
>>> Foo();
>>> int x() const;
>>> void x(int v);
>>> private:
>>> struct data;
>>> std::auto_ptr<data> d;
>>> };
>>>
>>> No good. You need to add
>>>
>>> ~Foo();
>>>
>>> So it would know to destroy Foo::Data correctly.
>>
>> You can't use std::auto_ptr for pimpl implementation in portable code.
>> Doing so is undefined behavior. To quote ISO/IEC 14882:2003 (§17.4.3.6,
>> p. 329):
>>
>> "In particular, the effects are undefined in the following cases:
>> [...]
>> — if an incomplete type (3.9) is used as a template argument when
>> instantiating a template component, unless specifically allowed
>> for that component."
>>
>> which applies to most standard library types.
>
>
> When you actually implement Foo::~Foo() {} in cpp file
> the type of the data object is complete so the destructor
> is installed correctly.
That's not correct. std::auto_ptr<data> is an instantiation which uses
an incomplete type as template argument. Providing an non-inline
destructor doesn't magically make the data struct used in your example a
complete type.
>
> It is undefined if you have inline destructor that does not have
> defined "struct data" but it is defined for non-inline destructor in cpp
> that has fully defined "struct data"
>
> So there is nothing wrong there neither in reality nor by the standard.
Your code produces undefined behavior and thus is not portable. See above.