For many reasons, we may want only one instance of a class to exist throughout the lifetime of an application. This is where the Singleton pattern comes
classmSingleObj{private:staticshared_ptr<mSingleObj>instance;stringdescription="this is single instance object";// private constructor so that we can not create an instancemSingleObj(){}// private copy constructor and assignment operator// previous version of c++mSingleObj(constmSingleObj&){}mSingleObj&operator=(constmSingleObj&){}// move constructor and move assignment operator// >= c++11 we can deletemSingleObj(mSingleObj&&)=delete;mSingleObj&operator=(mSingleObj&&)=delete;public://the only one way to to get objectstaticshared_ptr<mSingleObj>getInstance(){returninstance;}voiddisplay(){cout<<description<<endl;}~mSingleObj(){cout<<"Destructor called only one..."<<endl;}};//static object need to be initialized outside the class definationshared_ptr<mSingleObj>mSingleObj::instance(newmSingleObj());voidtestSingletonObj(){shared_ptr<mSingleObj>sObj=mSingleObj::getInstance();sObj->display();shared_ptr<mSingleObj>other_sObj=mSingleObj::getInstance();other_sObj->display();//check whether objects are the samecout<<"(sObj) Address of managed object: "<<sObj.get()<<std::endl;cout<<"(other_sObj) Address of managed object: "<<other_sObj.get()<<std::endl;}
Important things:
- the private constructor
- a way to get the object (because we cant not create an object of class with private constructor)
- the private Copy constructor and Copy assignment operator
But in my experience, I really dislike the Singleton pattern when dealing with unit tests.
Top comments(11)

- LocationNantes, France
- WorkSoftware System Engineer at eShard
- Joined
Singleton has been considered as an anti-pattern for a long time now... Why still writing blog post about it?
Especially to show a errorneous implementation... Simply addmSingleObj copy = *sObj;
to your test function and now you have two instances 😮
Implementing this pattern in C++ is quite tricky. Seemodernescpp.com/index.php/creation... (especially "The Meyers Singleton") for a robust implementation.
- EducationChosun University, South Korea
- WorkSoftware Engineer
- Joined
thank you, i forgot to make private Copy constructor and assignment operator .
i will update my post.
Singleton has been considered as an anti-pattern for a long time now... Why still writing blog post about it?
I agree that, but my works (Applications for Car) now still deal with many Singleton

- LocationNantes, France
- WorkSoftware System Engineer at eShard
- Joined
Maybe you should use C++11's features and delete them, instead of making them private. You can also default the constructor.
Even with these modifications, you implementation still have flaws (see the link).
I know many people still deal with singletons especially in legacy code. More than often, singletons are used as a convenience to get an instance of an object. LikeScreen::getInstance()
, instead of passing aScreen&
as parameters to functions that needs aScreen
object to display stuff.
- EducationChosun University, South Korea
- WorkSoftware Engineer
- Joined
thank you, i got it^^

- Email
- LocationSan Francisco Bay Area
- EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- WorkRetired Principal Software Engineer
- Joined
There's no reason to useshared_ptr
. Ordinary pointers are just fine.
- EducationChosun University, South Korea
- WorkSoftware Engineer
- Joined
right, but i just don't want to handle the deallocation work

- Email
- LocationSan Francisco Bay Area
- EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- WorkRetired Principal Software Engineer
- Joined
Who says you have to deallocate it? You return a pointer to a function local static object. It will be destroyed when the program terminates.
- EducationChosun University, South Korea
- WorkSoftware Engineer
- Joined
really, could you tell me more ? with ordinary pointer the code above never call my Destructor ?

- Email
- LocationSan Francisco Bay Area
- EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- WorkRetired Principal Software Engineer
- Joined
classS{S(){}public:staticS*instance();};S*S::instance(){staticSinstance_obj;return&instance_obj;}
Again, the destructorwill be called upon program termination. However, that can cause the destruction order fiasco in some cases (where the destructor will be called while some other code in some other translation unit is still using it). A solution that avoids that is:
S*S::instance(){staticS*constinstance_obj=newS{};returninstance_obj;}
In this case, the destructor willnever be called, but you avoid the fiasco. There's no perfect answer.
- EducationChosun University, South Korea
- WorkSoftware Engineer
- Joined
nice ! i got it

- Email
- LocationSan Francisco Bay Area
- EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- WorkRetired Principal Software Engineer
- Joined
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/orreporting abuse