I've been reading quite a number of discussions about performance issues when smart pointers are involved in an application. One of the frequent recommendations is to pass a smart pointer as const& instead of a copy, like this:
void doSomething(std::shared_ptr<T> o) {}
versus
void doSomething(const std::shared_ptr<T> &o) {}
However, doesn't the second variant actually defeat the purpose of a shared pointer? We are actually sharing the shared pointer here, so if for some reasons the pointer is released in the calling code (think of reentrancy or side effects) that const pointer becomes invalid. A situation the shared pointer actually should prevent. I understand that const& saves some time as there is no copying involved and no locking to manage the ref count. But the price is making the code less safe, right?
The advantage of passing the shared_ptr by const& is that the reference count doesn't have to be increased and then decreased. Because these operations have to be thread-safe, they can be expensive.
You are quite right that there is a risk that you can have a chain of passes by reference that later invalidates the head of the chain. This happened to me once in a real-world project with real-world consequences. One function found a shared_ptr in a container and passed a reference to it down a call stack. A function deep in the call stack removed the object from the container, causing all the references to suddenly refer to an object that no longer existed.
So when you pass something by reference, the caller must ensure it survives for the life of the function call. Don't use a pass by reference if this is an issue.
(I'm assuming you have a use case where there's some specific reason to pass by shared_ptr rather than by reference. The most common such reason would be that the function called may need to extend the life of the object.)
Update: Some more details on the bug for those interested: This program had objects that were shared and implemented internal thread safety. They were held in containers and it was common for functions to extend their lifetimes.
This particular type of object could live in two containers. One when it was active and one when it was inactive. Some operations worked on active objects, some on inactive objects. The error case occurred when a command was received on an inactive object that made it active while the only shared_ptr to the object was held by the container of inactive objects.
The inactive object was located in its container. A reference to the shared_ptr in the container was passed, by reference, to the command handler. Through a chain of references, this shared_ptr ultimately got to the code that realized this was an inactive object that had to be made active. The object was removed from the inactive container (which destroyed the inactive container's shared_ptr) and added to the active container (which added another reference to the shared_ptr passed to the "add" routine).
At this point, it was possible that the only shared_ptr to the object that existed was the one in the inactive container. Every other function in the call stack just had a reference to it. When the object was removed from the inactive container, the object could be destroyed and all those references were to a shared_ptr that that no longer existed.
It took about a month to untangle this.