Curiosity question about classes...

This really is not a problem just curious as to why it is this way.
if you make a class (A) and have it have pointer to class (B),(C),and(D).
If you use new on B,C,and D. It allocates the memory (obviously).
Why (IF) these are smart_ptrs (boost::shared_ptr) that they are deleted in the opposite order.


I made a little program testing this, and no matter what order I allocated them they were always freed in the exact opposite order.

constructor
B=new;
C=new;
D=new;

destructor
delete d;
delete c;
delete b;


I apologize for any redundancy in my question not much sleep lol. Well thanks if anyone understands what I am saying.

I am not sure at all whether this is right, but I think it may have something to do with the stack being implemented as (surprisingly) a stack. Therefore, in something like this:

Code:

---

{
int a;
int b;
int c;
}

---

a is first pushed into the stack, then b, then c (by incrementing the stack pointer three times). Therefore, to deallocate the memory, the order has to be reversed - c, b, then a (decrementing the stack pointer three times).

I could be completely off.

Destruction of member variables occurs in the opposite order of their construction. They are constructed in the order of their declaration (independent of their order in a constructor's initialisation list).

Okay thank you.

Think of it like this, since the smart_ptrs are on the stack, when the function ends, things are popped off the stack in LIFO order.

There's nothing special about a shared_ptr. It's an object like any other. When you construct shared_ptr objects on the stack, they are destructed in the opposite order. That implies that the underlying objects are also deleted in the opposite order.

Which is how it should all work.