I have this code so far :
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <windows.h>
#include <iomanip>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
#include <atomic>
class test {
public:
thread t1;
test() : t1(&test::work, this) {
}
void work() {
while (true) {
cout << "in thread";
Sleep(1000);
}
}
};
int main()
{
test t;
while (true) {
cout << "in main" << endl;
Sleep(1000);
}
return 0;
}
Question 1: Is this how I'm suppose to create a thread in a class object for one function only after I initialize the object?
Question 2: I've seen people write atomic_bool and run(), is that necessary? and what is it for?
Question 3: do I need to delete or join the thread or do any kind of memory management?
Problem How can I create the thread somewhere else in the function of the objects other than the constructor? I have did this and it didn't work
void work() : t1(&test::work, this) {
while (true) {
cout << "in thread";
Sleep(1000);
}
}
Is this how I'm supposed to create a thread in a class object for one function only after I initialize the object?
It's one option. Another is t1([this]{ work(); }).
Relevant question: Start thread with member function
Be aware that, generally, the current instance (*this) may not be fully constructed when the thread starts executing.
I've seen people write atomic_bool and run(), is that necessary? and what is it for?
Don't know what run() is, but atomic variables are used for communication between threads via shared memory.
Do I need to delete or join the thread or do any kind of memory management?
No, you don't need any of these since your program never ends (at least normally).
How can I create the thread somewhere else in the function of the objects other than the constructor?
You can assign the thread member variable t1 a new value.
I would suggest reading some good book to learn such basics.
Related
What is the proper way to pass a pointer to 2 threads that each one of the threads runs another operation?
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <thread>
#include <random>
struct Unit {
Unit(uint64_t id_) :
id(id_),
v(1000000000)
{}
uint64_t id;
std::vector<int> v;
};
void operation1(Unit* unit) {
std::cout << "Hello operation1";
}
void operation2(Unit* unit) {
std::cout << "Hello operation2";
}
void operationMain() {
Unit* unit = new Unit(1);
std::thread at1(&operation1, unit);
std::thread at2(&operation2, unit);
at1.detach();
at2.detach();
}
int main123(int argc, char** argv)
{
std::thread t(&operationMain);
t.join();
return 0;
}
Here is my code, and I think I have a memory leak because 'unit' is passing to several operations in different threads.
Any suggestions?
My suggestion is to not use detach() but use join() or not share the object or create one of in (say) the at1 thread, detach() it and create at2 the as a thread within that second thread and join in the at1 thread or allocated a shared_ptr<> but shared ownership is way down the list as 'avoid where possible'.
detach() means a thread executes independently and you cannot call join() on a detached thread so you have no suitable point at which to cause the delete of the dynamically allocated Unit to take place in the calling thread.
It's not clear from the question why you've allocated shared resources and then called detach().
On my machine I get no output (even with a realistic size for the vector) because the main() thread ends before the detach threads do anything meaningful.
This should work fine:
void operationMain() {
std::unique_ptr<Unit> unit (std::make_unique<Unit>(1));
std::thread at1(operation1, unit.get());
std::thread at2(operation2, unit.get());
at1.join();
at2.join();
//at1 and at2 have terminated and the unique_ptr destructor will delete the object (RAII).
}
Here is a simplified version of what I am trying to do:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <thread>
#include <atomic>
class client {
private:
std::vector<std::thread> threads;
std::atomic<bool> running;
void main() {
while(running) {
std::cout << "main" << std::endl;
}
}
void render() {
while(running) {
std::cout << "render" << std::endl;
}
}
public:
client() {
running = true;
threads.push_back(std::thread(&client::main, this));
threads.push_back(std::thread(&client::render, this));
}
~client() {
running = false;
for(auto& th : threads) th.join();
};
};
int main() {
client c;
std::string inputString;
getline(std::cin, inputString);
return 0;
}
(Note: code has been changed since question was written)
What I am trying to do is create a class that holds threads for the main loop(of the class), rendering, and a couple other things. However I cannot get this simplified version to work. I have tried using mutex to lock and unlock the threads, but didn't seem to help any. I do not know why it is not working, but I suspect that it is a result of the use of this in threads.push_back(std::thread(this->main, this));.
The current structure of the code doesn't have to remain... The only requirement is that uses one of it's own member functions as a thread (and that, that thread is stored in the class). I am not sure if this requires two classes or if my attempt to do it in one class was the correct approach. I have seen many examples of creating an object, and then calling a member that creates threads. I am trying to avoid this and instead create the threads within the constructor.
The problem here is that you do not wait for the threads to end. In main you create c. This then spawns the threads. The next thing to happen is to return which destroys c. When c is destroyed it destroys its members. Now when a thread is destroyed if it has not been joined or detached then std::terminate is called and the program ends
What you need to do is in the destructor, set running to false and then call join on both the threads. This will stop the loop in each thread and allow c to be destructed correctly.
Doing this however brings up another issue. running is not an atomic variable so writing to it while threads are reading it is undefined behavior. We can fin that though by changing running to a std::atomic<bool> which provides synchronization.
I also had to make a change to the thread construction. When you want to use a member function the syntax should be
std::thread(&class_name::function_name, pointer_to_instance_of_class_name, function_parameters)
so in this case it would be
threads.push_back(std::thread(&client::main, this));
threads.push_back(std::thread(&client::render, this));
I am new to windows c++ programming. Please see the below code where I want to make the two threads synchronized. The first thread should print "Hello" then pass the control/event to the second thread. Not sure how to do it. As of now I am using Sleep(1000). But if I dont use Sleep it result into undefined behavior. Please help...
#include <windows.h>
#include <process.h>
#include <iostream>
void thread1(void*);
void thread2(void*);
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
_beginthread(&thread1,0,(void*)0);
_beginthread(&thread2,0,(void*)0);
Sleep(1000);
}
void thread1(void*)
{
std::cout<<"Hello "<<std::endl;
}
void thread2(void*)
{
std::cout<<"World"<<std::endl;
}
The problem is the question you are asking really doesn't make sense. Multiple threads are designed to run at the same time and you're trying to play a game of pass the buck from one thread to another to get sequential serialised behavoir. Its like taking a really complicated tool and ask how it solves what is normally a really easy question.
However, multithreading is a really important topic to learn so I'll try to answer what you need to the best of my ability.
Firstly, I'd recommend using the new, standard C++11 functions and libraries. For windows, you can download Visual Studio 2012 Express Edition to play about with.
With this you can use std::thread, std::mutex and a lot [but not all] of the other C++11 goodies (like std::condition_variable).
To solve your problem you really need a condition variable. This lets you signal to another thread that something is ready for them:
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <atomic>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <thread>
static std::atomic<bool> ready;
static std::mutex lock;
static std::condition_variable cv;
// ThreadOne immediately prints Hello then 'notifies' the condition variable
void ThreadOne()
{
std::cout << "Hello ";
ready = true;
cv.notify_one();
}
// ThreadTwo waits for someone to 'notify' the condition variable then prints 'World'
// Note: The 'cv.wait' must be in a loop as spurious wake-ups for condition_variables are allowed
void ThreadTwo()
{
while(true)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> stackLock(lock);
cv.wait(stackLock);
if(ready) break;
}
std::cout << "World!" << std::endl;
}
// Main just kicks off two 'std::thread's. We must wait for both those threads
// to finish before we can return from main. 'join' does this - its the std
// equivalent of calling 'WaitForSingleObject' on the thread handle. its necessary
// to call join as the standard says so - but the underlying reason is that
// when main returns global destructors will start running. If your thread is also
// running at this critical time then it will possibly access global objects which
// are destructing or have destructed which is *bad*
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
std::thread t1([](){ThreadOne();});
std::thread t2([](){ThreadTwo();});
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
Here is the simplified version to handle your situation.
You are creating 2 threads to call 2 different function.
Ideally thread synchronization is used to serialize same code between threads but in your case it is not the need. You are trying to serialize 2 threads which are no way related to one another.
Any how you can wait for each thread to finish by not making async call.
#include <windows.h>
#include <process.h>
#include <iostream>
#include<mutex>
using namespace std;
void thread1(void*);
void thread2(void*);
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
HANDLE h1 = (HANDLE)_beginthread(&thread1,0,(void*)0);
WaitForSingleObject(h1,INFINITE);
HANDLE h2 = (HANDLE)_beginthread(&thread2,0,(void*)0);
WaitForSingleObject(h2,INFINITE);
}
void thread1(void*)
{
std::cout<<"Hello "<<std::endl;
}
void thread2(void*)
{
std::cout<<"World"<<std::endl;
}
You can group both beginthread in single function and call that function in while loop if you want to print multiple times.
void fun()
{
HANDLE h1 = (HANDLE)_beginthread(&thread1,0,(void*)0);
WaitForSingleObject(h1,INFINITE);
HANDLE h2 = (HANDLE)_beginthread(&thread2,0,(void*)0);
WaitForSingleObject(h2,INFINITE);
}
I want to know what is wrong with this code. Sometimes I get sementation fault, sometimes not. This is a problem that I have in a greater piece of software, the idea is that just one thread at the same time is executing the method MyClass::print. Even with this simple example, it fail with segmentation fault. What is wrong in the code? How I can solve the problem?
Thanks!
#include <iostream>
#include <ctime>
#include <QMutex>
#include <QtConcurrentRun>
class MyClass : QThread {
public:
void print(std::string str) {
mutex.lock();
std::cout << "In some thread: " << str << "\n";
mutex.unlock();
}
private:
QMutex mutex;
};
int main() {
MyClass myCl;
for(int i=0; i < 10; i++) {
QtConcurrent::run(&myCl, &MyClass::print,std::string("bla"));
}
}
You do not join your threads after the for cycle that spawns them.
Therefore, the main() function may end before all the threads have finished. This would make myCl go out of scope, and the threads would be trying to access an object that has been destroyed (in particular, its mutex variable). Which gives you Undefined Behavior.
Things should get better if you joined your threads before exiting from main() (or find any other way of not exiting from main() as long as any of the threads is still running).
This question's answers are a community effort. Edit existing answers to improve this post. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Can someone post a simple example of starting two (Object Oriented) threads in C++.
I'm looking for actual C++ thread objects that I can extend run methods on (or something similar) as opposed to calling a C-style thread library.
I left out any OS specific requests in the hopes that whoever replied would reply with cross platform libraries to use. I'm just making that explicit now.
Create a function that you want the thread to execute, for example:
void task1(std::string msg)
{
std::cout << "task1 says: " << msg;
}
Now create the thread object that will ultimately invoke the function above like so:
std::thread t1(task1, "Hello");
(You need to #include <thread> to access the std::thread class.)
The constructor's first argument is the function the thread will execute, followed by the function's parameters. The thread is automatically started upon construction.
If later on you want to wait for the thread to be done executing the function, call:
t1.join();
(Joining means that the thread who invoked the new thread will wait for the new thread to finish execution, before it will continue its own execution.)
The Code
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
using namespace std;
// The function we want to execute on the new thread.
void task1(string msg)
{
cout << "task1 says: " << msg;
}
int main()
{
// Constructs the new thread and runs it. Does not block execution.
thread t1(task1, "Hello");
// Do other things...
// Makes the main thread wait for the new thread to finish execution, therefore blocks its own execution.
t1.join();
}
More information about std::thread here
On GCC, compile with -std=c++0x -pthread.
This should work for any operating-system, granted your compiler supports this (C++11) feature.
Well, technically any such object will wind up being built over a C-style thread library because C++ only just specified a stock std::thread model in C++0x, which was just nailed down and hasn't yet been implemented.
The problem is somewhat systemic. Technically the existing C++ memory model isn't strict enough to allow for well-defined semantics for all of the 'happens before' cases. Hans Boehm wrote an paper on the topic a while back and was instrumental in hammering out the C++0x standard on the topic.
Threads Cannot be Implemented as a Library
That said, there are several cross-platform thread C++ libraries that work just fine in practice. The Intel thread building blocks contains a tbb::thread object that closely approximates the C++0x standard and Boost has a boost::thread library that does the same.
oneAPI Threading Building Blocks
Chapter 19. Thread (Boost documentation)
Using boost::thread, you'd get something like:
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
void task1() {
// do stuff
}
void task2() {
// do stuff
}
int main (int argc, char ** argv) {
using namespace boost;
thread thread_1 = thread(task1);
thread thread_2 = thread(task2);
// do other stuff
thread_2.join();
thread_1.join();
return 0;
}
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
void doSomething(int id) {
cout << id << "\n";
}
/**
* Spawns n threads
*/
void spawnThreads(int n)
{
std::vector<thread> threads(n);
// spawn n threads:
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
threads[i] = thread(doSomething, i + 1);
}
for (auto& th : threads) {
th.join();
}
}
int main()
{
spawnThreads(10);
}
There is also a POSIX library for POSIX operating systems.
Check for compatibility:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <iostream>
void *task(void *argument){
char* msg;
msg = (char*)argument;
std::cout << msg << std::endl;
}
int main(){
pthread_t thread1, thread2;
int i1, i2;
i1 = pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, task, (void*) "thread 1");
i2 = pthread_create(&thread2, NULL, task, (void*) "thread 2");
pthread_join(thread1, NULL);
pthread_join(thread2, NULL);
return 0;
}
Compile with -lpthread.
POSIX Threads
When searching for an example of a C++ class that calls one of its own instance methods in a new thread, this question comes up, but we were not able to use any of these answers that way. Here's an example that does that:
Class.h
class DataManager
{
public:
bool hasData;
void getData();
bool dataAvailable();
};
Class.cpp
#include "DataManager.h"
void DataManager::getData()
{
// perform background data munging
hasData = true;
// be sure to notify on the main thread
}
bool DataManager::dataAvailable()
{
if (hasData)
{
return true;
}
else
{
std::thread t(&DataManager::getData, this);
t.detach(); // as opposed to .join, which runs on the current thread
}
}
Note that this example doesn't get into mutex or locking.
Unless one wants a separate function in the global namespace, we can use lambda functions for creating threads.
One of the major advantage of creating a thread using lambda is that we don't need to pass local parameters as an argument list. We can use the capture list for the same and the closure property of lambda will take care of the lifecycle.
Here is sample code:
int main() {
int localVariable = 100;
thread th { [=]() {
cout << "The value of local variable => " << localVariable << endl;
}};
th.join();
return 0;
}
By far, I've found C++ lambdas to be the best way of creating threads especially for simpler thread functions.
It largely depends on the library you decide to use. For instance, if you use the wxWidgets library, the creation of a thread would look like this:
class RThread : public wxThread {
public:
RThread()
: wxThread(wxTHREAD_JOINABLE){
}
private:
RThread(const RThread ©);
public:
void *Entry(void){
//Do...
return 0;
}
};
wxThread *CreateThread() {
//Create thread
wxThread *_hThread = new RThread();
//Start thread
_hThread->Create();
_hThread->Run();
return _hThread;
}
If your main thread calls the CreateThread method, you'll create a new thread that will start executing the code in your "Entry" method. You'll have to keep a reference to the thread in most cases to join or stop it.
More information is in the wxThread documentation.