UPDATE
This answer is rather old, and so describes what was 'good' at the time, which was smart pointers provided by the Boost library. Since C++11, the standard library has provided sufficient smart pointers types, and so you should favour the use of std::unique_ptr, std::shared_ptr and std::weak_ptr.
There was also std::auto_ptr. It was very much like a scoped pointer, except that it also had the "special" dangerous ability to be copied — which also unexpectedly transfers ownership.
It was deprecated in C++11 and removed in C++17, so you shouldn't use it.
std::auto_ptr<MyObject> p1 (new MyObject());
std::auto_ptr<MyObject> p2 = p1; // Copy and transfer ownership.
// p1 gets set to empty!
p2->DoSomething(); // Works.
p1->DoSomething(); // Oh oh. Hopefully raises some NULL pointer exception.
OLD ANSWER
A smart pointer is a class that wraps a 'raw' (or 'bare') C++ pointer, to manage the lifetime of the object being pointed to. There is no single smart pointer type, but all of them try to abstract a raw pointer in a practical way.
Smart pointers should be preferred over raw pointers. If you feel you need to use pointers (first consider if you really do), you would normally want to use a smart pointer as this can alleviate many of the problems with raw pointers, mainly forgetting to delete the object and leaking memory.
With raw pointers, the programmer has to explicitly destroy the object when it is no longer useful.
// Need to create the object to achieve some goal
MyObject* ptr = new MyObject();
ptr->DoSomething(); // Use the object in some way
delete ptr; // Destroy the object. Done with it.
// Wait, what if DoSomething() raises an exception...?
A smart pointer by comparison defines a policy as to when the object is destroyed. You still have to create the object, but you no longer have to worry about destroying it.
SomeSmartPtr<MyObject> ptr(new MyObject());
ptr->DoSomething(); // Use the object in some way.
// Destruction of the object happens, depending
// on the policy the smart pointer class uses.
// Destruction would happen even if DoSomething()
// raises an exception
The simplest policy in use involves the scope of the smart pointer wrapper object, such as implemented by boost::scoped_ptr or std::unique_ptr.
void f()
{
{
std::unique_ptr<MyObject> ptr(new MyObject());
ptr->DoSomethingUseful();
} // ptr goes out of scope --
// the MyObject is automatically destroyed.
// ptr->Oops(); // Compile error: "ptr" not defined
// since it is no longer in scope.
}
Note that std::unique_ptr instances cannot be copied. This prevents the pointer from being deleted multiple times (incorrectly). You can, however, pass references to it around to other functions you call.
std::unique_ptrs are useful when you want to tie the lifetime of the object to a particular block of code, or if you embedded it as member data inside another object, the lifetime of that other object. The object exists until the containing block of code is exited, or until the containing object is itself destroyed.
A more complex smart pointer policy involves reference counting the pointer. This does allow the pointer to be copied. When the last "reference" to the object is destroyed, the object is deleted. This policy is implemented by boost::shared_ptr and std::shared_ptr.
void f()
{
typedef std::shared_ptr<MyObject> MyObjectPtr; // nice short alias
MyObjectPtr p1; // Empty
{
MyObjectPtr p2(new MyObject());
// There is now one "reference" to the created object
p1 = p2; // Copy the pointer.
// There are now two references to the object.
} // p2 is destroyed, leaving one reference to the object.
} // p1 is destroyed, leaving a reference count of zero.
// The object is deleted.
Reference counted pointers are very useful when the lifetime of your object is much more complicated, and is not tied directly to a particular section of code or to another object.
There is one drawback to reference counted pointers — the possibility of creating a dangling reference:
// Create the smart pointer on the heap
MyObjectPtr* pp = new MyObjectPtr(new MyObject())
// Hmm, we forgot to destroy the smart pointer,
// because of that, the object is never destroyed!
Another possibility is creating circular references:
struct Owner {
std::shared_ptr<Owner> other;
};
std::shared_ptr<Owner> p1 (new Owner());
std::shared_ptr<Owner> p2 (new Owner());
p1->other = p2; // p1 references p2
p2->other = p1; // p2 references p1
// Oops, the reference count of of p1 and p2 never goes to zero!
// The objects are never destroyed!
To work around this problem, both Boost and C++11 have defined a weak_ptr to define a weak (uncounted) reference to a shared_ptr.
Best Solution
Short answer is: Don't. ;-) Pointers are to be used where you can't use anything else. It is either because the lack of appropriate functionality, missing data types or for pure perfomance. More below...
Short answer here is: Where you cannot use anything else. In C you don't have any support for complex datatypes such as a string. There are also no way of passing a variable "by reference" to a function. That's where you have to use pointers. Also you can have them to point at virtually anything, linked lists, members of structs and so on. But let's not go into that here.
With little effort and much confusion. ;-) If we talk about simple data types such as int and char there is little difference between an array and a pointer. These declarations are very similar (but not the same - e.g.,
sizeofwill return different values):You can reach any element in the array like this
Index 1 since the array starts with element 0. :-)
Or you could equally do this
The pointer operator (the *) is needed since we are telling printf that we want to print a character. Without the *, the character representation of the memory address itself would be printed. Now we are using the character itself instead. If we had used %s instead of %c, we would have asked printf to print the content of the memory address pointed to by 'a' plus one (in this example above), and we wouldn't have had to put the * in front:
But this would not have just printed the second character, but instead all characters in the next memory addresses, until a null character (\0) were found. And this is where things start to get dangerous. What if you accidentally try and print a variable of the type integer instead of a char pointer with the %s formatter?
This would print whatever is found on memory address 120 and go on printing until a null character was found. It is wrong and illegal to perform this printf statement, but it would probably work anyway, since a pointer actually is of the type int in many environments. Imagine the problems you might cause if you were to use sprintf() instead and assign this way too long "char array" to another variable, that only got a certain limited space allocated. You would most likely end up writing over something else in the memory and cause your program to crash (if you are lucky).
Oh, and if you don't assign a string value to the char array / pointer when you declare it, you MUST allocate sufficient amount of memory to it before giving it a value. Using malloc, calloc or similar. This since you only declared one element in your array / one single memory address to point at. So here's a few examples:
Do note that you can still use the variable x after you have performed a free() of the allocated memory, but you do not know what is in there. Also do notice that the two printf() might give you different addresses, since there is no guarantee that the second allocation of memory is performed in the same space as the first one.