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

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • 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 4626094
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 22, 20262026-05-22T03:22:08+00:00 2026-05-22T03:22:08+00:00

I realize that there is a (Sometimes significant) performance hit for creating, assigning, copying,

  • 0

I realize that there is a (Sometimes significant) performance hit for creating, assigning, copying, and destroying a std::tr1::shared_ptr or boost::shared_ptr (due to the reference counting mechanisms). Is it correct that once constructed, accessing the pointer wrapped by a shared_ptr has no performance penalty?

in other words: given

std::tr1::shared_ptr<myClass> SharedA(new myClass);
myClass *NakedA = new myClass;

does

SharedA->someClassMember

have the same overhead as

NakedA->someClassMember

?

  • 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
    2026-05-22T03:22:09+00:00Added an answer on May 22, 2026 at 3:22 am

    In an optimized build without debugging support, there shouldn’t be any overhead. You can find out by taking a look at the implementation you are using. Chances are, its operator-> overload just returns the pointer to the pointed-to object and its operator* overload just dereferences this pointer.

    (This is what the Visual C++ 2010 implementation of std::shared_ptr does: each of those overloaded operators just calls a “get” function which just returns the pointer; there is no locking or other overhead of any kind. Other implementations may be different.)

    An unoptimized build may not inline the operator overload and if your implementation has extra debugging support that you enable, it may perform extra checks (e.g., perhaps an assert if you dereference a null pointer).

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

I realize that since UNIX sockets are platform-specific, there has to be some non-Java
I realize that this topic have been brought up sometimes, but I find myself
Sometimes I start a MATLAB script and realize too late that it is going
I realise there might be similar questions but I couldn't find one that was
I realize that literally it translates to Java Enterprise Edition. But what I'm asking
I realize that parameterized SQL queries is the optimal way to sanitize user input
I realize that this would be COMPLETELY bad practice in normal situations, but this
I realize that the query this question is looking for won't be enough to
I realize that far is compiler specific, but my expectation is that the placement
I realize that this question is impossible to answer absolutely, but I'm only after

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.