boost::shared_ptr<const T>
Is it legal to construct a boost::shared_ptr<const T> from a raw T*? On MSVC6, it produces errors when class T has an implicit destructor, but compiles without error otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew R. Thomas-Cramer Work: artc@prism-cs.com http://www.prism-cs.com/ Home: artc@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~artc/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: "Andrew R. Thomas-Cramer"
Is it legal to construct a boost::shared_ptr<const T> from a raw T*?
Yes, it's legal.
On MSVC6, it produces errors when class T has an implicit destructor, but compiles without error otherwise.
Seems to work for me; coud you post an example?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov"
From: "Andrew R. Thomas-Cramer"
Is it legal to construct a boost::shared_ptr<const T> from a raw T*?
Yes, it's legal.
Neat!
On MSVC6, it produces errors when class T has an implicit destructor, but compiles without error otherwise.
Seems to work for me; coud you post an example?
I'm using boost 1.27 and MSVC6.0. Here's example code, followed by the compiler
error:
#include
From: "Andrew R. Thomas-Cramer"
On MSVC6, it produces errors when class T has an implicit destructor,
but
compiles without error otherwise.
Seems to work for me; coud you post an example?
I'm using boost 1.27 and MSVC6.0. Here's example code, followed by the compiler error:
[...] This is a compiler-specific error, I believe; MSVC 6 doesn't like deleting const pointers. You can use shared_ptr<T const> p = shared_ptr<T>(new T); The new release has a templated constructor so shared_ptr<T const> p(new T); works as-is.
participants (2)
-
Andrew R. Thomas-Cramer -
Peter Dimov