Michael Buckman Michael Buckman - 1 month ago 11x
C++ Question

COM Reference Counting Questions

I am writing code that utilizes COM interfaces. I am basing my code on examples that I have found online. I do not want to utilize smart pointers in this case because I want to understand the basics of COM and not just have a smart pointer class do all of the work for me.

In order to frame my questions, let's assume I have a class similar to the following:

public class TestClass
IUnknown *m_pUnknown;

void AssignValue();

m_pUnknown = NULL;

void TestClass::AssignValue()
IUnknown *pUnknown = NULL;

//Assign value to pUnknown here - not relevant to my questions

m_pUnknown = pUnknown;


Now on to my specific questions.

1) The examples I've seen to not use
when initializing a value, such as in the class constructor. Does the
happen "automatically" behind the scenes when a COM pointer is first assigned a value?

2) Although my code example does not show it, it is my understanding that in the
method, when you assign a second value to overwrite the value of
(originally set in the class constructor),
is automatically called. After assigning the new value to
its reference count stands at zero. I need to call
immediately after the reassignment. Is my understanding correct?


Notes: I assume we are ignoring exceptions for simplicity here. If this was for real, you would want to use smart pointers to help keep things straight in the presence of exceptions. Similarly, I am not worrying about proper copying or destruction of instances of your example class or multi-threading. (Your raw pointers cannot be used from different threads as simply as you might assume.)

First, You need to make any necessary calls to COM. The only way anything might happen "automatically" behind the scenes would be if you were using smart pointers to do them.

1) The examples you refer to have to be getting their COM interface pointers from somewhere. This would be by making COM calls, e.g., CoCreateInstance() and QueryInterface(). These calls are passed the address of your raw pointer and set that raw pointer to the appropriate value. If they weren't also implicitly AddRef'ed, the reference count might be 0 and COM could delete the associated COM object before your program could do anything about it. So such COM calls must include an implicit AddRef() on your behalf. You are responsible for a Release() to match this implicit AddRef() that you instigated with one of these other calls.

2a) Raw pointers are raw pointers. Their value is garbage until you arrange for them to be set to something valid. In particular, assigning a value to one will NOT auto-magically call a function. Assigning to a raw pointer to an interface does not call Release() - you need to do that at the appropriate time. In your post, it appears that you are "overwriting" a raw pointer that had previously been set to NULL, hence there was no existing COM interface instance in the picture. There could not have been an AddRef() on something that doesn't exist, and must not be a Release() on something that isn't there.


Some of the code you indicated by a comment in your example is very relevant, but can easily be inferred. You have a local raw pointer variable, pUnknown. In the absent code, you presumably use a COM call that obtains an interface pointer, implicitly AddRefs it, and fills in your raw pointer with the proper value to use it. This gives you the responsibility for one corresponding Release() when you are done with it.

Next, you set a member raw pointer variable (m_pUnknown) with this same value. Depending on the previous use of this member variable, you might have needed to call Release() with its former value before doing this.

You now have 2 raw pointers set to the value to work with this COM interface instance and responsibility for one Release() due to 1 implicit AddRef() call. There are two ways to deal with this, but neither is quite what you have in your sample.

The first, most straightforward, and proper approach (which others have correctly pointed out & I skipped passed in the first version of this answer) is one AddRef() and one Release() per pointer. Your code is missing this for m_pUnknown. This requires adding m_pUnknown->AddRef() immediately after the assignment to m_pUnknown and 1 corresponding call to Release() "someplace else" when you are done using the current interface pointer from m_pUnknown. One usual candidate for this "someplace else" in your code is in the class destructor.

The second approach is more efficient, but less obvious. Even if you decide not to use it, you may see it, so should at least be aware of it. Following the first approach you would have the code sequence:

m_pUnknown = pUnknown;

Since pUnknown and m_pUnknown are set the same here, the Release() is immediately undoing the AddRef(). In this circumstance, eliding this AddRef/Release pair is reference count neutral and saves 2 round trips into COM. My mental model for this is a transfer of the interface and reference count from one pointer to the other. (With smart pointers it would look like newPtr.Attach( oldPtr.Detach() ); ) This approach leaves you with the original/not shown implicit AddRef() and needing to add the same m_pUnknown->Release() "someplace else" as in the first alternative.

In either approach, you exactly match AddRefs (implicit or explicit) with Releases for each interface and never go to a 0 reference count until you are done with the interface. Once you do hit 0, you do not attempt to use the value in the pointer.