Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8670041
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 12, 20262026-06-12T18:37:17+00:00 2026-06-12T18:37:17+00:00

I read here that: make_shared is (in practice) more efficient, because it allocates the

  • 0

I read here that:

make_shared is (in practice) more efficient, because it allocates the
reference control block together with the actual object in one single
dynamic allocation. By contrast, the constructor for shared_ptr that
takes a naked object pointer must allocate another dynamic variable
for the reference count

Does it mean that vector of std::shared_ptr created using std::make_shared will be
“cache-friendly” as the data (control block and real pointer’s data) are in one chunk ?

My use case is a vector of 100 000 shared pointers where object pointed to is 14 bytes.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-12T18:37:18+00:00Added an answer on June 12, 2026 at 6:37 pm

    Maybe, but don’t count on it.

    For cache-friendliness, you want to use as little memory as possible, and you want operations that are close together in address to also be close together in time (that is, close enough that the second operation uses memory that is still in some level of cache from the effects of the first operation: the lower the level of cache the better).

    If you use make_shared, then there might well be a slight saving in total memory use, which at least tends to be a win for the cache no matter what your memory usage pattern.

    If you use make_shared, then the control block and the object referred to (referand) will be adjacent in memory.

    If you don’t use make_shared, and your objects are a different size from your control blocks, then with common memory allocators there’s a reasonable chance that the objects will be clustered together in one place and the control blocks clustered together in a different place. If they are the same size (once rounded by the memory allocator in some implementation-specific way), then with common memory allocators there’s a reasonable chance that they’ll just alternate in memory for long runs unless shared_ptr does something to affect that.

    Your memory access pattern will determine which of those layouts is better for the cache — and of course the actual layout you get in the non-make_shared case might be something else again, depending on implementation details.

    The fact that you have a vector is basically independent of all this, since the shared_ptr objects are separate from the control-blocks and the referands.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I read here about std::auto_ptr<>::operator= Notice however that the left-hand side object is not
I've read here that editing a file in-place is not possible since it's OS
I've read several questions here that seemed to be related (either directly or indirectly)
Possible Duplicate: Search-like highlighting in NSTextView I thought i read here months ago that
I've read a few answers on here that condemn the use of svn:externals. I
I have an XML file that I'm trying to read from here , and
When I read some of the answers on here I notice that some people
Here is the thread that I read about making a stack of resources from
I read the MSDN documentation and examples here and I know that the correct
I have read so many times, here and everywhere on the net, that mutexes

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.