what's wrong with this smart pointer class

Question

when I create a "acrptr" object inside another "arcptr" object,the application returned with error code,and I found that when I remove the "delete" in the destructor,everything is fine.I can't understand why...

template <class T>
class arcptr {
public:
    arcptr()
        : ptr(nullptr)
        , originPointer(false){};
    arcptr(T* ptr)
        : ptr(ptr)
        , originPointer(true){};
    arcptr(const arcptr<T>& it)
        : ptr(it.ptr)
        , originPointer(false){};
    ~arcptr()
    {
        if (originPointer)
            delete ptr;
    };
    T operator*() { return *ptr; };
    T* operator->() { return ptr; };

private:
    T* ptr;
    bool originPointer;
};

,

    class A {
public:
    A() {};
private:
    int value;
};

class B {
public:
    B() {
        myA = new A;
    }
private:
    arcptr<A> myA;
};

int main() {
    arcptr<B> myB = new B;
}

Please provide a [mre] but at a guess it's due to not obeying the [rule of three](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4172722/what-is-the-rule-of-three) — Alan Birtles, Aug 14 '20 at 13:30
I suspect because you violated the [Rule of Three](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/rule_of_three) by not providing a copy assignment operator. — Fred Larson, Aug 14 '20 at 13:30
I'm not sure why `arcptr` would be more desirable then a `std::unique_ptr` for the original and raw pointers for the others. — François Andrieux, Aug 14 '20 at 13:31
Yes, he didnt follow the rule of three. But can you at least read the question? The problem is when he creates a `arcptr` to another `arcptr` — Pablochaches, Aug 14 '20 at 13:33
@Pablochaches: Yes, and possibly via a copy assignment. But we can't know without a [mcve]. — Fred Larson, Aug 14 '20 at 13:35
And it seems i will have to shut up. I thought that one inside another meant something like `arcptr>` with nothing else. Next time i will wait for the example. Sorry @FredLarson — Pablochaches, Aug 14 '20 at 13:43
`B():myA(new A){};` would probably *hide* the issue. But following the duplicate question is the right path. — Jeffrey, Aug 14 '20 at 13:44
@FredLarson if so this is a pretty terrible smart pointer. It's really easy for `arcptr`s to dangle. — Caleth, Aug 14 '20 at 14:07
Another issue is that you can copy those smart pointers around. But when the `originPointer` gets deleted, all the other become invalidated — Jeffrey, Aug 14 '20 at 14:17

what's wrong with this smart pointer class

0 Answers0