I am programming with normal pointers, but I have heard about libraries like Boost that implement smart pointers. I have also seen that in Ogre3D rendering engine there is a deep use of shared pointers.
What exactly is the difference between the three, and should I stick on using just a type of them?
the term "smart pointer" includes shared pointers, auto pointers, locking pointers and others. you meant to say auto pointer (more ambiguously known as "owning pointer"), not smart pointer.
Dumb pointers (T*) are never the best solution. They make you do explicit memory management, which is verbose, error prone, and sometimes nigh impossible. But more importantly, they don't signal your intent.
Auto pointers delete the pointee at destruction. For arrays, prefer encapsulations like vector and deque. For other objects, there's very rarely a need to store them on the heap - just use locals and object composition. Still the need for auto pointers arises with functions that return heap pointers -- such as factories and polymorphic returns.
Shared pointers delete the pointee when the last shared pointer to it is destroyed. This is useful when you want a no-brainer, open-ended storage scheme where expected lifetime and ownership can vary widely depending on the situation. Due to the need to keep an (atomic) counter, they're a bit slower than auto pointers. Some say half in jest that shared pointers are for people who can't design systems -- judge for yourself.
For an essential counterpart to shared pointers, look up weak pointers too.
To add a small bit to Sydius' answer, smart pointers will often provide a more stable solution by catching many easy to make errors. Raw pointers will have some perfromance advantages and can be more flexible in certain circumstances. You may also be forced to use raw pointers when linking into certain 3rd party libraries.
To avoid memory leaks you may use smart pointers whenever you can. There are basically 2 different types of smart pointers in C++
The main difference is that reference counted smart pointers can be copied (and used in std:: containers) while scoped_ptr cannot. Non reference counted pointers have almost no overhead or no overhead at all. Reference counting always introduces some kind of overhead.
(I suggest to avoid auto_ptr, it has some serious flaws if used incorrectly)
To add a small bit to Sydius' answer, smart pointers will often provide a more stable solution by catching many easy to make errors. Raw pointers will have some perfromance advantages and can be more flexible in certain circumstances. You may also be forced to use raw pointers when linking into certain 3rd party libraries.
Smart pointers will clean themselves up after they go out of scope (thereby removing fear of most memory leaks). Shared pointers are smart pointers that keep a count of how many instances of the pointer exist, and only clean up the memory when the count reaches zero. In general, only use shared pointers (but be sure to use the correct kind--there is a different one for arrays). They have a lot to do with RAII.
the term "smart pointer" includes shared pointers, auto pointers, locking pointers and others. you meant to say auto pointer (more ambiguously known as "owning pointer"), not smart pointer.
Dumb pointers (T*) are never the best solution. They make you do explicit memory management, which is verbose, error prone, and sometimes nigh impossible. But more importantly, they don't signal your intent.
Auto pointers delete the pointee at destruction. For arrays, prefer encapsulations like vector and deque. For other objects, there's very rarely a need to store them on the heap - just use locals and object composition. Still the need for auto pointers arises with functions that return heap pointers -- such as factories and polymorphic returns.
Shared pointers delete the pointee when the last shared pointer to it is destroyed. This is useful when you want a no-brainer, open-ended storage scheme where expected lifetime and ownership can vary widely depending on the situation. Due to the need to keep an (atomic) counter, they're a bit slower than auto pointers. Some say half in jest that shared pointers are for people who can't design systems -- judge for yourself.
For an essential counterpart to shared pointers, look up weak pointers too.
To add a small bit to Sydius' answer, smart pointers will often provide a more stable solution by catching many easy to make errors. Raw pointers will have some perfromance advantages and can be more flexible in certain circumstances. You may also be forced to use raw pointers when linking into certain 3rd party libraries.
the term "smart pointer" includes shared pointers, auto pointers, locking pointers and others. you meant to say auto pointer (more ambiguously known as "owning pointer"), not smart pointer.
Dumb pointers (T*) are never the best solution. They make you do explicit memory management, which is verbose, error prone, and sometimes nigh impossible. But more importantly, they don't signal your intent.
Auto pointers delete the pointee at destruction. For arrays, prefer encapsulations like vector and deque. For other objects, there's very rarely a need to store them on the heap - just use locals and object composition. Still the need for auto pointers arises with functions that return heap pointers -- such as factories and polymorphic returns.
Shared pointers delete the pointee when the last shared pointer to it is destroyed. This is useful when you want a no-brainer, open-ended storage scheme where expected lifetime and ownership can vary widely depending on the situation. Due to the need to keep an (atomic) counter, they're a bit slower than auto pointers. Some say half in jest that shared pointers are for people who can't design systems -- judge for yourself.
For an essential counterpart to shared pointers, look up weak pointers too.
Smart pointers will clean themselves up after they go out of scope (thereby removing fear of most memory leaks). Shared pointers are smart pointers that keep a count of how many instances of the pointer exist, and only clean up the memory when the count reaches zero. In general, only use shared pointers (but be sure to use the correct kind--there is a different one for arrays). They have a lot to do with RAII.
To avoid memory leaks you may use smart pointers whenever you can. There are basically 2 different types of smart pointers in C++
The main difference is that reference counted smart pointers can be copied (and used in std:: containers) while scoped_ptr cannot. Non reference counted pointers have almost no overhead or no overhead at all. Reference counting always introduces some kind of overhead.
(I suggest to avoid auto_ptr, it has some serious flaws if used incorrectly)
Smart pointers will clean themselves up after they go out of scope (thereby removing fear of most memory leaks). Shared pointers are smart pointers that keep a count of how many instances of the pointer exist, and only clean up the memory when the count reaches zero. In general, only use shared pointers (but be sure to use the correct kind--there is a different one for arrays). They have a lot to do with RAII.
Smart pointers will clean themselves up after they go out of scope (thereby removing fear of most memory leaks). Shared pointers are smart pointers that keep a count of how many instances of the pointer exist, and only clean up the memory when the count reaches zero. In general, only use shared pointers (but be sure to use the correct kind--there is a different one for arrays). They have a lot to do with RAII.
To add a small bit to Sydius' answer, smart pointers will often provide a more stable solution by catching many easy to make errors. Raw pointers will have some perfromance advantages and can be more flexible in certain circumstances. You may also be forced to use raw pointers when linking into certain 3rd party libraries.
To avoid memory leaks you may use smart pointers whenever you can. There are basically 2 different types of smart pointers in C++
The main difference is that reference counted smart pointers can be copied (and used in std:: containers) while scoped_ptr cannot. Non reference counted pointers have almost no overhead or no overhead at all. Reference counting always introduces some kind of overhead.
(I suggest to avoid auto_ptr, it has some serious flaws if used incorrectly)
Source: Stackoverflow.com