我有这样的代码,但我认为意图是明确的:

testmakeshared.cpp

#include <memory>

class A {
 public:
   static ::std::shared_ptr<A> create() {
      return ::std::make_shared<A>();
   }

 protected:
   A() {}
   A(const A &) = delete;
   const A &operator =(const A &) = delete;
};

::std::shared_ptr<A> foo()
{
   return A::create();
}

但是当我编译它时,我得到了这个错误:

g++ -std=c++0x -march=native -mtune=native -O3 -Wall testmakeshared.cpp
In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr.h:52:0,
                 from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/memory:86,
                 from testmakeshared.cpp:1:
testmakeshared.cpp: In constructor ‘std::_Sp_counted_ptr_inplace<_Tp, _Alloc, _Lp>::_Sp_counted_ptr_inplace(_Alloc) [with _Tp = A, _Alloc = std::allocator<A>, __gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy _Lp = (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2u]’:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:518:8:   instantiated from ‘std::__shared_count<_Lp>::__shared_count(std::_Sp_make_shared_tag, _Tp*, const _Alloc&, _Args&& ...) [with _Tp = A, _Alloc = std::allocator<A>, _Args = {}, __gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy _Lp = (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2u]’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:986:35:   instantiated from ‘std::__shared_ptr<_Tp, _Lp>::__shared_ptr(std::_Sp_make_shared_tag, const _Alloc&, _Args&& ...) [with _Alloc = std::allocator<A>, _Args = {}, _Tp = A, __gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy _Lp = (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2u]’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr.h:313:64:   instantiated from ‘std::shared_ptr<_Tp>::shared_ptr(std::_Sp_make_shared_tag, const _Alloc&, _Args&& ...) [with _Alloc = std::allocator<A>, _Args = {}, _Tp = A]’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr.h:531:39:   instantiated from ‘std::shared_ptr<_Tp> std::allocate_shared(const _Alloc&, _Args&& ...) [with _Tp = A, _Alloc = std::allocator<A>, _Args = {}]’
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr.h:547:42:   instantiated from ‘std::shared_ptr<_Tp1> std::make_shared(_Args&& ...) [with _Tp = A, _Args = {}]’
testmakeshared.cpp:6:40:   instantiated from here
testmakeshared.cpp:10:8: error: ‘A::A()’ is protected
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.1/../../../../include/c++/4.6.1/bits/shared_ptr_base.h:400:2: error: within this context

Compilation exited abnormally with code 1 at Tue Nov 15 07:32:58

这条消息基本上是在说模板实例化堆栈中::std::make_shared中的一些随机方法不能访问构造函数,因为它是受保护的。

但我真的想使用::std::make_shared和防止任何人创建这个类的对象不是由a::std::shared_ptr指向的。有什么办法可以做到吗?


当前回答

[编辑]我阅读了上面提到的标准化std::shared_ptr_access<>提案的线程。其中有一个响应,指出了对std::allocate_shared<>的修复以及它的使用示例。我已经将其调整为下面的工厂模板,并在gcc c++ 11/14/17下测试了它。它与std::enable_shared_from_this<>一起工作,所以显然比我在这个答案中的原始解决方案更可取。在这儿……

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

class Factory final {
public:
    template<typename T, typename... A>
    static std::shared_ptr<T> make_shared(A&&... args) {
        return std::allocate_shared<T>(Alloc<T>(), std::forward<A>(args)...);
    }
private:
    template<typename T>
    struct Alloc : std::allocator<T> {
        template<typename U, typename... A>
        void construct(U* ptr, A&&... args) {
            new(ptr) U(std::forward<A>(args)...);
        }
        template<typename U>
        void destroy(U* ptr) {
            ptr->~U();
        }
    };  
};

class X final : public std::enable_shared_from_this<X> {
    friend class Factory;
private:
    X()      { std::cout << "X() addr=" << this << "\n"; }
    X(int i) { std::cout << "X(int) addr=" << this << " i=" << i << "\n"; }
    ~X()     { std::cout << "~X()\n"; }
};

int main() {
    auto p1 = Factory::make_shared<X>(42);
    auto p2 = p1->shared_from_this();
    std::cout << "p1=" << p1 << "\n"
              << "p2=" << p2 << "\n"
              << "count=" << p1.use_count() << "\n";
}

[Orig]我发现了一个解决方案使用共享指针别名构造函数。它允许ctor和dtor都是私有的,以及final说明符的使用。

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

class Factory final {
public:
    template<typename T, typename... A>
    static std::shared_ptr<T> make_shared(A&&... args) {
        auto ptr = std::make_shared<Type<T>>(std::forward<A>(args)...);
        return std::shared_ptr<T>(ptr, &ptr->type);
    }
private:
    template<typename T>
    struct Type final {
        template<typename... A>
        Type(A&&... args) : type(std::forward<A>(args)...) { std::cout << "Type(...) addr=" << this << "\n"; }
        ~Type() { std::cout << "~Type()\n"; }
        T type;
    };
};

class X final {
    friend struct Factory::Type<X>;  // factory access
private:
    X()      { std::cout << "X() addr=" << this << "\n"; }
    X(int i) { std::cout << "X(...) addr=" << this << " i=" << i << "\n"; }
    ~X()     { std::cout << "~X()\n"; }
};

int main() {
    auto ptr1 = Factory::make_shared<X>();
    auto ptr2 = Factory::make_shared<X>(42);
}

注意,上面的方法不适用于std::enable_shared_from_this<>,因为初始std::shared_ptr<>是针对包装器的,而不是针对类型本身的。我们可以用一个与工厂兼容的等价类来解决这个问题……

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

template<typename T>
class EnableShared {
    friend class Factory;  // factory access
public:
    std::shared_ptr<T> shared_from_this() { return weak.lock(); }
protected:
    EnableShared() = default;
    virtual ~EnableShared() = default;
    EnableShared<T>& operator=(const EnableShared<T>&) { return *this; }  // no slicing
private:
    std::weak_ptr<T> weak;
};

class Factory final {
public:
    template<typename T, typename... A>
    static std::shared_ptr<T> make_shared(A&&... args) {
        auto ptr = std::make_shared<Type<T>>(std::forward<A>(args)...);
        auto alt = std::shared_ptr<T>(ptr, &ptr->type);
        assign(std::is_base_of<EnableShared<T>, T>(), alt);
        return alt;
    }
private:
    template<typename T>
    struct Type final {
        template<typename... A>
        Type(A&&... args) : type(std::forward<A>(args)...) { std::cout << "Type(...) addr=" << this << "\n"; }
        ~Type() { std::cout << "~Type()\n"; }
        T type;
    };
    template<typename T>
    static void assign(std::true_type, const std::shared_ptr<T>& ptr) {
        ptr->weak = ptr;
    }
    template<typename T>
    static void assign(std::false_type, const std::shared_ptr<T>&) {}
};

class X final : public EnableShared<X> {
    friend struct Factory::Type<X>;  // factory access
private:
    X()      { std::cout << "X() addr=" << this << "\n"; }
    X(int i) { std::cout << "X(...) addr=" << this << " i=" << i << "\n"; }
    ~X()     { std::cout << "~X()\n"; }
};

int main() {
    auto ptr1 = Factory::make_shared<X>();
    auto ptr2 = ptr1->shared_from_this();
    std::cout << "ptr1=" << ptr1.get() << "\nptr2=" << ptr2.get() << "\n";
}

最后,有人说clang抱怨Factory::Type在作为朋友使用时是私有的,所以如果是这种情况,就把它设为公共。暴露它没有坏处。

其他回答

这个怎么样?

static std::shared_ptr<A> create()
{
    std::shared_ptr<A> pA(new A());
    return pA;
}

查看20.7.2.2.6 shared_ptr创建[util.smartptr.shared]中std::make_shared的需求。Create],第1段:

要求:表达式::new (pv) T(std::forward<Args>(Args)…),其中pv具有void*类型,并且指向适合存储T类型对象的存储空间,必须是格式良好的。A应该是一个分配器(17.6.3.5)。A的复制构造函数和析构函数不能抛出异常。

因为要求在表达上是无条件的,像范围这样的东西没有被考虑在内,我认为像友谊这样的技巧是正确的。

一个简单的解决方案是从A派生。这并不需要将A变成一个接口,甚至是一个多态类型。

// interface in header
std::shared_ptr<A> make_a();

// implementation in source
namespace {

struct concrete_A: public A {};

} // namespace

std::shared_ptr<A>
make_a()
{
    return std::make_shared<concrete_A>();
}

我意识到这个线程是相当旧的,但我找到了一个答案,不需要继承或额外的参数到构造函数,我不能在其他地方看到。但它是不可移植的:

#include <memory>

#if defined(__cplusplus) && __cplusplus >= 201103L
#define ALLOW_MAKE_SHARED(x) friend void __gnu_cxx::new_allocator<test>::construct<test>(test*);
#elif defined(_WIN32) || defined(WIN32)
#if defined(_MSC_VER) && _MSC_VER >= 1800
#define ALLOW_MAKE_SHARED(x) friend class std::_Ref_count_obj;
#else
#error msc version does not suport c++11
#endif
#else
#error implement for platform
#endif

class test {
    test() {}
    ALLOW_MAKE_SHARED(test);
public:
    static std::shared_ptr<test> create() { return std::make_shared<test>(); }

};
int main() {
    std::shared_ptr<test> t(test::create());
}

我已经在windows和linux上进行了测试,它可能需要针对不同的平台进行调整。

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

class A : public std::enable_shared_from_this<A>
{
private:
    A(){}
    explicit A(int a):m_a(a){}
public:
    template <typename... Args>
    static std::shared_ptr<A> create(Args &&... args)
    {
        class make_shared_enabler : public A
        {
        public:
            make_shared_enabler(Args &&... args):A(std::forward<Args>(args)...){}
        };
        return std::make_shared<make_shared_enabler>(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
    }

    int val() const
    {
        return m_a;
    }
private:
    int m_a=0;
};

int main(int, char **)
{
    std::shared_ptr<A> a0=A::create();
    std::shared_ptr<A> a1=A::create(10);
    std::cout << a0->val() << " " << a1->val() << std::endl;
    return 0;
}

基于CRTP的解决方案,允许对多个类进行分解,很容易启用,并适用于带参数的构造函数。它要求构造函数是受保护的(而不是私有的)。用法有点类似于enable_shared_from_this。它没有破坏受保护关键字的缺点,即使用::make_unique的类必须是友类。灵感来自Mark Tolley的回答。

实现:

template <typename ClassWithProtectedCtor>
class enable_protected_make_unique
{
protected: // important, if public then equivalent to having the constructor public which is what we want to avoid!
    template <typename... Args>
    static std::unique_ptr<ClassWithProtectedCtor> make_unique(Args &&... args)
    {
        class make_unique_enabler : public ClassWithProtectedCtor
        {
        public:
            // it's from this line that comes the need to have the constructor protected, not private:
            make_unique_enabler(Args &&... args) : ClassWithProtectedCtor(std::forward<Args>(args)...) {}
        };
        return std::make_unique<make_unique_enabler>(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
    }
};

用法示例:

class Factory;

class MyClassWithProtectedCtor : public enable_protected_make_unique<MyClassWithProtectedCtor>
{
friend Factory;
private:
    MyClassWithProtectedCtor(int a, double c) {};
}

class Factory
{
    std::unique_ptr<MyClassWithProtectedCtor> CreateMyClassWithProtectedCtor(int a, double c)
    {
        return MyClassWithProtectedCtor::make_unique(a, c);
    }
}

您可以用shared替换unique,或者在同一个“使能器”类中合并这两者。

免责声明:我没有在产品代码中测试,可能有缺点(例如当提到MyClassWithProtectedCtor类型时,会出现较长的错误消息)。