The other day, while working on the same circa-2012 codebase that generated my previous blog post on shared_ptr(&w, _1) (2019-02-06), I noticed something perhaps noteworthy. When you have code of the form

Widget::ptr widget(new Widget);

you often want to modernize it into

std::shared_ptr<Widget> widget(new Widget);

and then into

auto widget = std::make_shared<Widget>();

(which, notice, is subtly different in a way that doesn’t matter to almost any codebase: make_shared will merge the allocations of the Widget and its control block, which has good ramifications for memory usage in general and bad ramifications for memory usage if you expect to have a lot of expired weak_ptr s in your program).

However, if you are masochistic enough to do this kind of transformation manually, you must be very careful that you don’t brain-fart it into

auto widget = std::shared_ptr<Widget>();

The above is well-formed and valid C++ code. It gives widget the exact same static type. The only difference is that instead of setting widget to a new heap-allocated Widget , it sets widget to nullptr !

The moral of the story is to be careful when modernizing. But the good news is that if all your code follows the same known style — if code that does the same thing, always looks the same — then it is usually pretty easy to grep for anomalies.

For example, the only place that std::shared_ptr<.*>(.*) appears in our newly modernized codebase is in a couple of places that use the aliasing constructor, and unfortunately in our unit-test code, where GMock requires us to write things like