Скачать или смотреть Understanding unique_ptr and Custom Destructors in C+ +

Discover why a vector of objects with a `unique_ptr` and a custom destructor fails to compile in C+ + , and learn how to resolve the issue effectively.
---
This video is based on the question https://stackoverflow.com/q/63764971/ asked by the user 'ASMateus' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/5692423/ ) and on the answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/63765048/ provided by the user 'Quimby' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/7691729/ ) at 'Stack Overflow' website. Thanks to these great users and Stackexchange community for their contributions.

Visit these links for original content and any more details, such as alternate solutions, latest updates/developments on topic, comments, revision history etc. For example, the original title of the Question was: Vector of objects with a unique_ptr member and custom destructor

Also, Content (except music) licensed under CC BY-SA https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/l...
The original Question post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license, and the original Answer post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license.

If anything seems off to you, please feel free to write me at vlogize [AT] gmail [DOT] com.
---
Understanding unique_ptr and Custom Destructors in C+ +

When working with C+ + , it's not uncommon to run into compilation issues related to resource management and object lifecycle management. One such scenario arises when you attempt to use a vector of objects that contain unique_ptr members while also defining a custom destructor. This guide explores this issue in depth and provides a clear solution to avoid compilation errors.

The Problem

Consider the following code snippet, which depicts an attempt to move an object of type A into a vector called av:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

What Happens Here?

When you try to compile this code, it fails due to the following reasons:

The error message indicates that there are missing copy constructors. Even though we are only performing move operations, the custom destructor impacts the generation of the necessary functions for A.

The main issue stems from the fact that having a unique_ptr member in your struct, with a defined custom destructor, disables the automatic generation of the move constructor and move assignment operator.

Why Does This Compilation Error Occur?

Custom Destructor: When you define a custom destructor (~A()), it signals to the compiler that you might have specific resource management needs, preventing it from generating the special member functions automatically.

Unique Pointer: The presence of std::unique_ptr indicates unique ownership, which also requires custom handling in certain scenarios, especially when copy operations are involved.

The Solution

The good news is that there's a straightforward workaround for this compilation error. You can manually define the move constructor and move assignment operator as default. Here’s how you can modify your struct:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

Breakdown of the Solution

Default Constructor: By explicitly stating A() = default;, you're allowing an instance of A to be constructed without initializing any members (besides their defaults).

Move Constructor and Assignment: The lines A(A&&) = default; and A& operator=(A&&) = default; enable the move semantics for your class, which prevents the need for costly copies.

Safety Checks: The static_assert statements at the end ensure that objects of type A can be moved without exceptions, promoting safe resource handling.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while working with unique_ptr and custom destructors in your C+ + code, be aware that defining a destructor can complicate resource management by disabling automatic function generation. However, by explicitly declaring your move constructor and move assignment operator, you can successfully manage resource ownership and avoid compilation errors. With the above guidance, you can navigate these complexities and enhance your understanding of C+ + memory management.

Consider these practices as essential components of modern C+ + programming, especially when dealing with complex object lifecycles!