I have a timer class I use to time blocks of code. Essentially something like this:
timer.start();
////do something
timer.end();
I am looking for a compile-time way to ensure that both the start and end call exist, and are within scope. Even hacky methods.
Here is one example of what I mean...this would generate a compile-time error if "end()" is called, but not "start()", due to the way a hidden variable "foo" is initialized.
#define start_macro bool foo = false; timer.start();
#define end_macro foo = true; timer.end();
//start_macro
////do something
end_macro //generates error because start_macro not called, thus foo not declared
But obviously the application of that method is limited because it generates no error if end() is the function not called.
Are there any clever ways I can ensure both functions are called, in order and in scope, at compile-time? I'm not interested in any run-time checking methods...I'd like a faster way to catch missing calls.
Unfortunaley there is no general solution. You would need to tell the compiler somehow, what are the matching functions. And, you never know, in which scope the closing function should be. So, rather difficult to impossible.
The better approach would be to use a wrapper class with constructor/destructor solution. The constructor would start the timer and the destrcutor would stop it. But that is runtime . . .
Another solution would be to write macro, which injects the code between timer start and stop, between such statements. But really not nice and anyway, marcros are not recommended. There could be also a template approach, trying to mimick that.
But for this to judge you need to specify more requirements.
You can use RAII, define a class wrapper, for example ScopedTimer, it's constructor calls start() and the destructor calls end(). Make your Timer::start() and Timer::end() protected, and make ScopedTimer as a friend of Timer, so that only ScopedTimer can calls to them.
There is no runtime checking. And there is no compile time checking either. It just makes it impossible to write code that calls one of the functions but not the other.
class ScopedTimer {
public:
explicit ScopedTimer(Timer *tm)
: tm_(tm) {
this->tm_->start();
}
~ScopedTimer() { this->tm_->stop(); }
protected:
Timer* tm;
};
// Your code will be like this:
{ // This pair of braces defines the scope that you want to measure.
ScopedTimer st(&timer);
////do something
}
Just as Shawn pointed out in his comment. To make sure timer has started, you simple put start of timer in constructor and stop in destructor. I used this method while making measurements for my project.
class Timer {
public:
Clock clock;
Timer() { clock.start(); }
~Timer()
{
clock.stop();
saveMeasurements();
}
private:
void saveMeasurements(); //save measurements to file
}
Related
I have a class called MatrixAlt and i'm trying to multi thread a function to do some work on that matrix.
My general method worked when I just implemented it in a couple of functions. But when I try to bring it into the class methods, I get an error.
The problematic line (or where it highlights anyway) is 4 lines from the end and the error message is in the comments just above it.
#include <vector>
#include <future>
#include <thread>
class MatrixAlt
{
public:
MatrixAlt();
// initilaise the matrix to constant value for each entry
void function01(size_t maxThreads);
void function02(size_t threadIndex);
};
MatrixAlt::MatrixAlt()
{
}
void MatrixAlt::function02(size_t threadIndex)
{
// do some stuff
return;
}
void MatrixAlt::function01(size_t maxThreads)
{
// To control async threads and their results
std::vector<std::future<bool>> threadsIssued;
// now loop through all the threads and orchestrate the work to be done
for (size_t threadIndex = 0; threadIndex < maxThreads; ++threadIndex)
{
// line 42 gives error:
// 'MatrixAlt::function02': non-standard syntax; use '&' to create a pointer to member
// 'std::async': no matching overloaded function found
threadsIssued.push_back(std::async(function02, threadIndex));
}
return;
}
Your first problem is solved like this
threadsIssued.push_back(std::async(&MatrixAlt::function02, this, threadIndex));
You need to specify the exact class::function and take its address and which instance of the class your doing it for, and then the parameters.
The second problem which you haven't see yet is this line
std::vector<std::future<bool>> threadsIssued;
All those futures will be lost in scope exit, like tears in rain. Time to destroy.
Freely after Blade runner.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to
die.
Whenever you have a member function in C++, that function takes the object itself as an implicit first argument. So you need to pass the object as well, but even then, it can't be called with the same syntax as a normal function that takes the object.
The simplest way to setup an asynchronous job in C++ is typically just to use lambdas. They've very clear and explicit. So, for example, you could change your call to:
threadsIssued.push_back(std::async([this] (size_t t) { this->function02(t);}, threadIndex));
This lambda is explicitly capturing the this pointer, which tells us that all of the function02 calls will be called on the same object that the calling function01 is called on.
In addition to being correct, and explicit, this also helps highlight an important point: all of the function02 objects will be running with mutable access to the same MatrixAlt object. This is very dangerous, so you need to make sure that function02 is thread safe, one way or another (usually easy if its conceptually const, otherwise perhaps need a mutex, or something else).
I need to keep track of an interval of time and call a function each time the interval has passed. I've consulted SDL's documentation on SDL_AddTimer, but gcc is complaining that I'm doing it wrong.
So, how can I make regular intervals, or how do I use AddTimer?
The examples for AddTimer in the SDL docs weren't clear to me. gcc has told me that I'm missing arguments in my callback function and that my timer doesn't exist in the scope (but I don't know what to declare). Here's what I've crappily tried:
SDL_AddTimer(3000,changeMusic,NULL);
Uint32 changeMusic(Uint32 interval, void *param){...
I thought maybe if the time elapsed was divisible by 3 seconds, then the function would run, but this ended up activating at an erratic frequency.
if(interval.getTicks()%3000==0){
changeMusic();
}
Or, if a countdown hit zero, reset it and call a function, but I don't know how to make a timer that counts down.
//something like this
cdTimer=(3000 to 0)
if(cdTimer==0){
cdTimer=(3000 to 0);
changeMusic();
}
I'm pretty sure, from your snippet, that you didn't declare the function before the call to SDL_AddTimer(), and thus the compiler thinks it's the wrong function parameters.
There are two solutions:
Move the callback function from the SDL_AddTimer() to somewhere before the timer call.
Use a forward declaration to move the function up.
It's also possible that you are trying to use a member function in a class, in which case it would have to be a static member function. Something like this:
class Mylene
{
public:
... // other stuff goes here ...
static Uint32 ChangeMusic(Uint32 x, void *p)
{
Mylene *self = reinterpret_cast<Mylene *>(p);
self->doChangeMusic();
return 0;
}
... more stuff here, perhaps ...
};
Mylene mylene(...); // Note, must not go out of scope before the ChangeMusic is called.
// ... stuff ...
timer_id = SDL_AddTimer(3000, &Mylene::ChangeMusic, &mylene); // Passing the mylene object...
... Do other things here for some time ...
I'm trying to work out a design predicament I have.
ClassWithLongOperation
{
Run()
{
RecrusiveOperation();
}
RecrusiveOperation()
{
/* RECURSION */
}
}
MyThread
{
ClassWithLongOperation Op1(10);
Op1.Run(); // Takes several minutes.
ClassWithLongOperation Op2(20);
Op2.Run();
SomeOtherClassWithLongOperation Op3;
Op3.Run();
// Do some other stuff
}
The GUI starts MyThread, which runs for a good 5-6 minutes. I want to be able to have a big fat Cancel button on my GUI, so the user can cancel the operation.
I could create a global boolean variable bCancelled, and check if its been set in RecursiveOperation, but I want to be a good C++ & OO programmer and avoid global variables. Especially if they would have to spread across multiple files.
So how would I (following good design) safely cancel MyThread? What could I change in my setup to allow this?
I'm also using _beginthreadex to start the thread, but I could use boost if it would allow for an easier solution.
Your flag not need to be global to your entire program, but it needs to be visible to your class code. Create the flag to be a private instance member and a public function to change it to false/true. In your recursive function, test its value to verify if the task should continue. When you want, set its value to false (through the function of course) to stop the recursive calls, i.e., when the user clicks the button you call the function in the desired instance. This way you will not break any OO principle, since you have a private flag and a public member function to safely change it.
Using a global variable is actually not the worst thing in the world. Having a proliferation of unnecessary global variables leads to maintenance nightmares, but it actually sounds like a quick and easy-to-understand solution here. But if you want a clean OO solution, this is certainly possible:
EDIT My original post overlooked the fact that you want to be able to run several operations in sequence, and if any of them is cancelled, none of the remaining operations are performed. This means it's more useful to keep the bool flag inside the canceller, instead of separately in each cancellable operation; and exceptions are the nicest way to handle the actual control flow. I've also tightened up a few things (added volatile for the flag itself, made names clearer, restricted unnecessary access rights).
// A thing that can cancel another thing by setting a bool to true.
class Canceller {
public:
Canceller : cancelledFlag(false) {}
void RegisterCancellee(Cancellee const& c) {
c.RegisterCanceller(cancelledFlag);
}
void Cancel() {
cancelledFlag = true;
}
private:
volatile bool cancelledFlag;
};
class CancelButton : public Canceller {
...
// Call Cancel() from on-click event handler
...
};
class Cancellation : public std::exception {
public:
virtual const char* what() const throw() {
return "User cancelled operation";
}
};
// A thing that can be cancelled by something else.
class Cancellee {
friend class Canceller; // Give them access to RegisterCanceller()
protected:
Cancellee() : pCancelledFlag(0) {}
// Does nothing if unconnected
void CheckForCancellation() {
if (pCancelledFlag && *pCancelledFlag) throw Cancellation();
}
private:
void RegisterCanceller(volatile bool& cancelledFlag) {
pCancelledFlag = &cancelledFlag;
}
volatile bool* pCancelledFlag;
};
class Op1 : public Cancellee { // (And similarly for Op2 and Op3)
...
// Poll CheckForCancellation() inside main working loop
...
};
MyThread
{
CancelButton cancelButton("CANCEL!");
try {
ClassWithLongOperation Op1(10);
cancelButton.RegisterCancellee(Op1);
Op1.Run(); // Takes several minutes.
ClassWithLongOperation Op2(20);
cancelButton.RegisterCancellee(Op2);
Op2.Run();
SomeOtherClassWithLongOperation Op3;
cancelButton.RegisterCancellee(Op3);
Op3.Run();
} catch (Cancellation& c) {
// Maybe write to a log file
}
// Do some other stuff
}
The "double bouncing" registration allows the canceller to give access to a private flag variable.
The most important thing is to not use thread termination functions, except in very specialised cases. Why? They don't run destructors. Nor do they give the target thread any chance to "clean up".
Instead of using a global variable, add a method to ClassWithLongOperation and/or MyThread, something like cancelOperation() that will set an internal boolean variable. The appropriate class methods would then need to check the variable at appropriate moments.
You could implement a Stop() method for your ClassWithLongOperation and have the event handler for BigFatCancelButton to call this Stop() method for the current operation.
... Or add a Stop() method to the Thread class and make the work objects be aware of the threads they're running in. You may as well throw in a Stop() method for the work objects. Depending on what's more important: Stop the thread or the work object.
I am registering four callback functions:
glfwSetMouseButtonCallback(procMouseButton);
glfwSetMousePosCallback(procMousePosition);
glfwSetCharCallback(procCharInput);
glfwSetKeyCallback(procKeyInput);
Each callback function looks similar to this:
void GLFWCALL procMouseButton(int button, int action) {
Input::instance().processMouseButton(button, action); // doesn't do anything yet
}
Input is a singleton:
Input& Input::instance()
{
static Input instance;
return instance;
}
After the callback functions are registered, a segfault occurs. I have narrowed down the problem to two things.
First: Excluding any of the process functions causes the segfault to disappear. For example,
// this works
glfwSetMouseButtonCallback(procMouseButton);
//glfwSetMousePosCallback(procMousePosition);
glfwSetCharCallback(procCharInput);
glfwSetKeyCallback(procKeyInput);
// this works also
glfwSetMouseButtonCallback(procMouseButton);
glfwSetMousePosCallback(procMouseButton); // exclude procMousePosition
glfwSetCharCallback(procCharInput);
glfwSetKeyCallback(procKeyInput);
Second: Segfault occurs when popping or pushing a std::vector declared here in singleton Engine:
class Engine
{
public:
static Engine& instance();
std::list<GameState*> states;
private:
Engine() {}
Engine(Engine const& copy);
Engine& operator=(Engine const& copy);
};
// either causes segfault after registering functions
Engine::instance().states.push_back(NULL);
Engine::instance().states.pop_front();
I am completely baffled. I am assuming the problem is related to static initialization order fiasco, but I have no idea how to fix it. Can anyone explain why this error is occurring?
Important notes:
If I reverse the linking order, it no longer segfaults.
I am using MinGW/GCC for compiling.
I am running single threaded.
The singletons do not have default constructors, everything is initialized by Singleton::instance().initialize();
The exact segfault call stack:
0047B487 std::__detail::_List_node_base::_M_hook(std::__detail::_List_node_base*) ()
00000000 0x00401deb in std::list >::_M_insert()
00000000 0x00401dbb in std::list >::push_back()
00401D92 Engine::pushState(GameState*) ()
00404710 StartupState::initialize() ()
00402A11 Engine::initialize() ()
00000000 0x00403f29 in main()
Without seeing the rest of your program, it's hard to say why it's segfaulting. It sounds timing-related. Here's a few things you can try:
Put breakpoints in the constructors of your Engine class, Input class, (any other involved classes,) and the callback-setting code. That will tell you if the callbacks are registering before the singletons they use construct. Note that breakpoints might throw off your program's timing, so if one class hits first, you can disable that breakpoint and rerun. Try this multiple times to check the results are consistent.
Is there a reason you can't try the change to pointers instead of references (like the "fiasco" mentions)?
(Your update while I was writing this makes this part not-so-useful since the callstack shows it's not in a constructor. )This sounds like the callbacks are registering during construction of some class. If that's the case:
Can you move the registration calls so they happen under main()? That ought to get you past initializations.
Split up the class construction into two phases: the normal constructor, and an init() function. Put the critical code inside init(), and call that after everybody has finished constructing.
You could also prevent the callbacks from happening until later. If you can't move the callback registration to a later time in your game's startup, you could put flags so they don't do anything until a "safe" time. Adjusting when this flag enables could let you see "how late" is "late enough". The extra if() overhead is better than a crash. :)
volatile bool s_bCallbackSafe = false; // set this at some point in your game/app
void GLFWCALL procMouseButton(int button, int action) {
if (s_bCallbackSafe)
Input::instance().processMouseButton(button, action); // doesn't do anything yet
}
Before asking you my question directly, I'm going to describe the nature of my prolem.
I'm coding a 2D simulation using C++/OpenGL with the GLFW library. And I need to manage a lot of threads properly. In GLFW we have to call the function:
thread = glfwCreateThread(ThreadFunc, NULL); (the first parameter is the function that'll execute the thread, and the second represents the parameters of this function).
And glfwCreateThread, has to be called every time! (ie: in each cycle). This way of working, doesn't really help me, because it breaks the way i'm building my code because i need to create threads out of the main loop scope. So I'm creating a ThreadManager class, that'll have the following prototype :
class ThreadManager {
public:
ThreadManager();
void AddThread(void*, void GLFWCALL (*pt2Func)(void*));
void DeleteThread(void GLFWCALL (*pt2Func)(void*));
void ExecuteAllThreads();
private:
vector<void GLFWCALL (*pt2Func)(void*)> list_functions;
// some attributs
};
So for example, if I want to add a specific thread I'll just need to call AddThread with the specific parameters, and the specific function. And the goal is just to be able to call: ExecuteAllThreads(); inside the main loop scope. But for this i need to have something like:
void ExecuteAllThreads() {
vector<void GLFWCALL (*pt2Func)(void*)>::const_iterator iter_end = list_functions.end();
for(vector<void GLFWCALL (*pt2Func)(void*)>::const_iterator iter = list_functions.begin();
iter != iter_end; ++iter) {
thread = glfwCreateThread(&(iter*), param);
}
}
And inside AddThread, I'll just have to add the function referenced by the pt2Func to the vector : list_functions.
Alright, this is the general idea of what i want to do.. is it the right way to go ? You have a better idea ? How to do this, really ? (I mean the problem is the syntax, i'm not sure how to do this).
Thank you !
You need to create threads in each simulation cycle? That sounds suspicious. Create your threads once, and reuse them.
Thread creation isn't a cheap operation. You definitely don't want to do that in every iteration step.
If possible, I'd recommend you use Boost.Thread for threads instead, to give you type safety and other handy features. Threading is complicated enough without throwing away type safety and working against a primitive C API.
That said, what you're asking is possible, although it gets messy. First, you need to store the arguments for the functions as well, so your class looks something like this:
class ThreadManager {
public:
typedef void GLFWCALL (*pt2Func)(void*); // Just a convenience typedef
typedef std::vector<std::pair<pt2Func, void*> > func_vector;
ThreadManager();
void AddThread(void*, pt2Func);
void DeleteThread(pt2Func);
void ExecuteAllThreads();
private:
func_vector list_functions;
};
And then ExecuteAllThreads:
void ExecuteAllThreads() {
func_vector::const_iterator iter_end = list_functions.end();
for(func_vector::const_iterator iter = list_functions.begin();
iter != iter_end; ++iter) {
thread = glfwCreateThread(iter->first, iter->second);
}
}
And of course inside AddThread you'd have to add a pair of function pointer and argument to the vector.
Note that Boost.Thread would solve most of this a lot cleaner, since it expects a thread to be a functor (which can hold state, and therefore doesn't need explicit arguments).
Your thread function could be defined something like this:
class MyThread {
MyThread(/* Pass whatever arguments you want in the constructor, and store them in the object as members */);
void operator()() {
// The actual thread function
}
};
And since the operator() doesn't take any parameters, it becomes a lot simpler to start the thread.
What about trying to store them using boost::function ?
They could simulate your specific functions, since they behave like real objects but in fact are simple functors.
Consider Boost Thread and Thread Group
I am not familiar with the threading system you use. So bear with me.
Shouldn't you maintain a list of thread identifiers?
class ThreadManager {
private:
vector<thread_id_t> mThreads;
// ...
};
and then in ExecuteAllThreads you'd do:
for_each(mThreads.begin(), mThreads.end(), bind(some_fun, _1));
(using Boost Lambda bind and placeholder arguments) where some_fun is the function you call for all threads.
Or is it that you want to call a set of functions for a given thread?