Is std::unique_ptr<T> required to know the full definition of T?

I have some code in a header that looks like this:

#include <memory>

class Thing;

class MyClass
{
    std::unique_ptr< Thing > my_thing;
};

If I include this header in a cpp that does not include the Thing type definition, then this does not compile under VS2010-SP1:

1>C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\include\memory(2067): error C2027: use of undefined type 'Thing'

Replace std::unique_ptr by std::shared_ptr and it compiles.

So, I'm guessing that it开发者_StackOverflow中文版's the current VS2010 std::unique_ptr's implementation that requires the full definition and it's totally implementation-dependant.

Or is it? Is there something in it's standard requirements that makes impossible for std::unique_ptr's implementation to work with a forward declaration only? It feels strange as it should only hold a pointer to Thing, shouldn't it?

Adopted from here.

Most templates in the C++ standard library require that they be instantiated with complete types. However shared_ptr and unique_ptr are partial exceptions. Some, but not all of their members can be instantiated with incomplete types. The motivation for this is to support idioms such as pimpl using smart pointers, and without risking undefined behavior.

Undefined behavior can occur when you have an incomplete type and you call delete on it:

class A;
A* a = ...;
delete a;

The above is legal code. It will compile. Your compiler may or may not emit a warning for above code like the above. When it executes, bad things will probably happen. If you're very lucky your program will crash. However a more probable outcome is that your program will silently leak memory as ~A() won't be called.

Using auto_ptr<A> in the above example doesn't help. You still get the same undefined behavior as if you had used a raw pointer.

Nevertheless, using incomplete classes in certain places is very useful! This is where shared_ptr and unique_ptr help. Use of one of these smart pointers will let you get away with an incomplete type, except where it is necessary to have a complete type. And most importantly, when it is necessary to have a complete type, you get a compile-time error if you try to use the smart pointer with an incomplete type at that point.

No more undefined behavior

If your code compiles, then you've used a complete type everywhere you need to.

class A
{
    class impl;
    std::unique_ptr<impl> ptr_;  // ok!

public:
    A();
    ~A();
    // ...
};

Type completeness requirements for unique_ptr and shared_ptr

shared_ptr and unique_ptr require a complete type in different places. The reasons are obscure, having to do with a dynamic deleter vs a static deleter. The precise reasons aren't important. In fact, in most code it isn't really important for you to know exactly where a complete type is required. Just code, and if you get it wrong, the compiler will tell you.

However, in case it is helpful to you, here is a table which documents several operations of shared_ptr and unique_ptr with respect to completeness requirements.

Any operations requiring pointer conversions require complete types for both unique_ptr and shared_ptr.

The unique_ptr<A>{A*} constructor can get away with an incomplete A only if the compiler is not required to set up a call to ~unique_ptr<A>(). For example if you put the unique_ptr on the heap, you can get away with an incomplete A. More details on this point can be found in BarryTheHatchet's answer here.

The compiler needs the definition of Thing to generate the default destructor for MyClass. If you explicitly declare the destructor and move its (empty) implementation to the CPP file, the code should compile.

This isn't implementation-dependent. The reason that it works is because shared_ptr determines the correct destructor to call at run-time - it isn't part of the type signature. However, unique_ptr's destructor is part of its type, and it must be known at compile-time.

It looks like current answers are not exactly nailing down why default constructor (or destructor) is problem but empty ones declared in cpp isn't.

Here's whats happening:

If outer class (i.e. MyClass) doesn't have constructor or destructor then compiler generates the default ones. The problem with this is that compiler essentially inserts the default empty constructor/destructor in the .hpp file. This means that the code for default contructor/destructor gets compiled along with host executable's binary, not along with your library's binaries. However this definitions can't really construct the partial classes. So when linker goes in your library's binary and tries to get constructor/destructor, it doesn't find any and you get error. If the constructor/destructor code was in your .cpp then your library binary has that available for linking.

This is nothing to do with using unique_ptr or shared_ptr and other answers seems to be possible confusing bug in old VC++ for unique_ptr implementation (VC++ 2015 works fine on my machine).

So moral of the story is that your header needs to remain free of any constructor/destructor definition. It can only contain their declaration. For example, ~MyClass()=default; in hpp won't work. If you allow compiler to insert default constructor or destructor, you will get a linker error.

One other side note: If you are still getting this error even after you have constructor and destructor in cpp file then most likely the reason is that your library is not getting compiled properly. For example, one time I simply changed project type from Console to Library in VC++ and I got this error because VC++ did not added _LIB preprocessor symbol and that produced exact same error message.

Just for completeness:

Header: A.h

class B; // forward declaration

class A
{
    std::unique_ptr<B> ptr_;  // ok!  
public:
    A();
    ~A();
    // ...
};

Source A.cpp:

class B {  ...  }; // class definition

A::A() { ... }
A::~A() { ... }

The definition of class B must be seen by constructor, destructor and anything that might implicitely delete B. (Although the constructor doesn't appear in the list above, in VS2017 even the constructor needs the definition of B. And this makes sense when considering that in case of an exception in the constructor the unique_ptr is destroyed again.)

I was looking for a way to use the PIMPL idiom with std::unique_ptr. This guide is a great resource.

In short, here's what you can do to make it work:

my_class.h

#include <memory>

class Thing;

class MyClass
{
    ~MyClass(); // <--- Added
    std::unique_ptr< Thing > my_thing;
};

my_class.cpp

MyClass::~MyClass() = default; // Or a custom implementation

The full definition of the Thing is required at the point of template instantiation. This is the exact reason why the pimpl idiom compiles.

If it wasn't possible, people would not ask questions like this.

The simple answer is just use shared_ptr instead.

As for me,

QList<QSharedPointer<ControllerBase>> controllers;

Just include the header ...

#include <QSharedPointer>