CodexBloom - Programming Q&A Platform

How to implement guide with std::shared_ptr and custom deleter causing double delete in c++17

👀 Views: 62 💬 Answers: 1 📅 Created: 2025-05-31
cpp shared_ptr memory-management

I'm stuck on something that should probably be simple. I've encountered a strange issue with I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm integrating two systems and I'm dealing with I'm working on a personal project and I'm experiencing a question with using `std::shared_ptr` with a custom deleter in my C++17 application..... I have a class that manages resources and uses a custom deleter to free those resources. However, I keep running into a `double free or corruption` behavior when my program attempts to deallocate the memory. Here's a simplified version of my code: ```cpp #include <iostream> #include <memory> class Resource { public: Resource() { std::cout << "Resource acquired\n"; } ~Resource() { std::cout << "Resource destroyed\n"; } }; void customDeleter(Resource* res) { std::cout << "Custom deleter called\n"; delete res; } int main() { std::shared_ptr<Resource> resPtr(new Resource(), customDeleter); std::shared_ptr<Resource> resPtr2 = resPtr; // Uncommenting the following line causes double deletion // resPtr.reset(); return 0; } ``` In the code above, I create a `shared_ptr` with a custom deleter. When I try to reset one of the `shared_ptr`s, I get the double deletion behavior when both pointers go out of scope. I suspect that the custom deleter is being called twice because both `shared_ptr`s end up pointing to the same resource. I’ve tried using `std::weak_ptr` but that still leads to the same scenario. Is there a best practice for using custom deleters with `std::shared_ptr` in this scenario? How can I prevent this double deletion scenario? Any help would be greatly appreciated! I'm working on a service that needs to handle this. What's the correct way to implement this? What am I doing wrong? For context: I'm using Cpp on Debian. This is part of a larger microservice I'm building. Am I missing something obvious?