1. 技术文章
  2. std::shared_ptr in an std::initializer_list appears to be getting destroyed prematurely

std::shared_ptr in an std::initializer_list appears to be getting destroyed prematurely

由 一个人想着一个人 提交于 2019-12-18 05:15:33

问题


Edit: This is indeed caused by a bug in Visual Studio - and it has already been fixed. The issue is not reproducible after applying Update 2 to Visual Studio (release candidate available here). I apologize; I thought I was up to date with my patches.

I can't for the life of me figure out why I get a seg fault when I run the following code in Visual Studio 2013:

#include <initializer_list>
#include <memory>

struct Base
{
    virtual int GetValue() { return 0; }
};

struct Derived1 : public Base
{
    int GetValue() override { return 1; }
};

struct Derived2 : public Base
{
    int GetValue() override { return 2; }
};

int main()
{
    std::initializer_list< std::shared_ptr<Base> > foo
        {
            std::make_shared<Derived1>(),
            std::make_shared<Derived2>()
        };

    auto iter = std::begin(foo);
    (*iter)->GetValue(); // access violation

    return 0;
}

I was expecting the initializer_list to take ownership of the created shared_ptrs, keeping them in scope until the end of main.

Oddly enough, if I try to access the second item in the list, I get the expected behavior. For example:

    auto iter = std::begin(foo) + 1;
    (*iter)->GetValue(); // returns 2

Considering these things, I'm guessing this may be a bug in the compiler - but I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking some explanation for why this behavior might be expected (e.g., maybe in how rvalues are handled in initializer_lists).

Is this behavior reproducible in other compilers, or can someone explain what might be happening?


回答1:


See the original answer for analysis of object lifetimes of the code in the question. This one isolates the bug.

I made a minimal reproduction. It's more code, but a lot less library code involved. And easier to trace.

#include <initializer_list>

template<size_t N>
struct X
{
    int i = N;

    typedef X<N> self;
    virtual int GetValue() { return 0; }
    X()                               { std::cerr << "X<" << N << ">() default ctor" << std::endl; }
    X(const self& right) : i(right.i) { std::cerr << "X<" << N << ">(const X<" << N << "> &) copy-ctor" << std::endl; }
    X(self&& right)      : i(right.i) { std::cerr << "X<" << N << ">(X<" << N << ">&&      ) moving copy-ctor" << std::endl; }

    template<size_t M>
    X(const X<M>& right) : i(right.i) { std::cerr << "X<" << N << ">(const X<" << M << "> &) conversion-ctor" << std::endl; }
    template<size_t M>
    X(X<M>&& right)      : i(right.i) { std::cerr << "X<" << N << ">(X<" << M << ">&&      ) moving conversion-ctor" << std::endl; }

    ~X() { std::cerr << "~X<" << N << ">(), i = " << i << std::endl; }
};

template<size_t N>
X<N> make_X() { return X<N>{}; }

#include <iostream>
int main()
{
    std::initializer_list< X<0> > foo
        {
            make_X<1>(),
            make_X<2>(),
            make_X<3>(),
            make_X<4>(),
        };

    std::cerr << "Reached end of main" << std::endl;

    return 0;
}

The output is BAD on both x64:

C:\Code\SO22924358>cl /EHsc minimal.cpp
Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 18.00.21005.1 for x64
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

minimal.cpp
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 12.00.21005.1
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

/out:minimal.exe
minimal.obj

C:\Code\SO22924358>minimal
X<1>() default ctor
X<0>(X<1>&&      ) moving conversion-ctor
X<2>() default ctor
X<0>(X<2>&&      ) moving conversion-ctor
X<3>() default ctor
X<0>(X<3>&&      ) moving conversion-ctor
X<4>() default ctor
X<0>(X<4>&&      ) moving conversion-ctor
~X<0>(), i = 2
~X<2>(), i = 2
~X<0>(), i = 1
~X<1>(), i = 1
Reached end of main
~X<0>(), i = 4
~X<0>(), i = 3
~X<0>(), i = 2
~X<0>(), i = 1

and x86:

C:\Code\SO22924358>cl /EHsc minimal.cpp
Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 18.00.21005.1 for x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

minimal.cpp
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 12.00.21005.1
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

/out:minimal.exe
minimal.obj

C:\Code\SO22924358>minimal
X<1>() default ctor
X<0>(X<1>&&      ) moving conversion-ctor
X<2>() default ctor
X<0>(X<2>&&      ) moving conversion-ctor
X<3>() default ctor
X<0>(X<3>&&      ) moving conversion-ctor
X<4>() default ctor
X<0>(X<4>&&      ) moving conversion-ctor
~X<0>(), i = 2
~X<2>(), i = 2
~X<0>(), i = 1
~X<1>(), i = 1
Reached end of main
~X<0>(), i = 4
~X<0>(), i = 3
~X<0>(), i = 2
~X<0>(), i = 1

Definitely a compiler bug, and a pretty severe one. If you file a report on Connect I and many others will be happy to upvote.




回答2:


The shared_ptr objects returned from make_shared are temporaries. They will be destroyed at the end of the full-expression, after being used to initialize shared_ptr<Base> instances.

But ownership of the user objects (the Derived1 and Derived2) should be shared (or "transferred" if you like) to the shared_ptr instances in the list. Those user objects should live until the end of main.

I just ran the code from your question using Visual Studio 2013 and got no access violation. Oddly, when I trace to main() and ~Base(), I get the following output:

C:\Code\SO22924358>cl /EHsc main.cpp
Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 18.00.21005.1 for x64
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

main.cpp
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 12.00.21005.1
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

/out:main.exe
main.obj

C:\Code\SO22924358>main
~Base()
Reached end of main
~Base()

That does look wrong.

And if I do something with the return value of GetValue(), it is wrong (0 instead of 1) and I get the access violation. It occurs after all tracing output, however. And it seems somewhat intermittent.

C:\Code\SO22924358>cl /Zi /EHsc main.cpp
Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 18.00.21005.1 for x64
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

main.cpp
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 12.00.21005.1
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

/out:main.exe
/debug
main.obj

C:\Code\SO22924358>main
~Base()
GetValue() returns 0
Reached end of main
~Base()

Here's the final version of the code I'm working with:

#include <initializer_list>
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>

struct Base
{
    virtual int GetValue() { return 0; }
    ~Base() { std::cerr << "~Base()" << std::endl; }
};

struct Derived1 : public Base
{
    int GetValue() override { return 1; }
};

struct Derived2 : public Base
{
    int GetValue() override { return 2; }
};

int main()
{
    std::initializer_list< std::shared_ptr<Base> > foo
        {
            std::make_shared<Derived1>(),
            std::make_shared<Derived2>()
        };

    auto iter = std::begin(foo);
    std::cerr << "GetValue() returns " << (*iter)->GetValue() << std::endl; // access violation

    std::cerr << "Reached end of main" << std::endl;

    return 0;
}

Stepping through shows that destructors are called immediately after initializer list construction for shared_ptr<Derived1> (correct, its object has been moved to a shared_ptr<Base>), and the matching shared_ptr<Base>, which is very very wrong.



来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22924358/stdshared-ptr-in-an-stdinitializer-list-appears-to-be-getting-destroyed-prem

标签
c++
visual-c++
visual-studio-2013
initializer-list
compiler-bug
易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容，如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈！
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!