I'm currently new to programming and don't know, how to let the program process while the loading bar is running.
I wanted to display the loading bar and check, wether the program is finished processing. If not, then the processing bar should simply begin to fill again.
My code now is just showing the loading bar once and begins to process after that. This is pretty useless.
I researched on Google and here on stack overflow, but i only got the loading bar from that, not the useful integration in my program.
I just need a simple way to check, wether there would be an output besides the loading bar and i need to run the rest of the program at the same time as the loading bar, just to save time.
#include <iostream>
#include <windows.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <string>
#include <thread>
using namespace std;
static void loading(){
system("Color 0A");
cout<<"\t\n\n";
char a=177, b=219;
cout<<"\t";
for (int i=0;i<=50;i++)
cout<<a;
cout<<"\r";
cout<<"\t";
for (int i=0;i<=50;i++){
cout<<b;
for (int j=0;j<=2e7;j++);
}
cout << "\n\n";
}
int main(){
//ProjectEuler Problem___
loading();
int j=0;
do{
j++;
}while(j<=1e9); //just an example to see when it is processing
cout << "hi" << endl;
return 0;
}
I'm grateful for any help.
The typical pattern you're looking for would look something like:
void do_expensive_work(std::atomic<bool>& done) {
... something expensive goes here...
done = true;
}
int main() {
std::atomic<bool> done = false;
auto t = std::thread(do_expensive_work, std::ref(done));
while (!done) {
... update your progress bar ...
... sleep a bit ...
}
t.join();
return 0;
}
The specifics of how you communicate the result of your computation back to the calling thread etc are up to you. Similarly, you could in theory use a global atomic for the done status, or wrap up the computation in a class that keeps track of state and manages the execution of the thread. Code above is greatly simplified but gives a general pattern.
Related
I have a task - to write a multithreaded webcrawler (actually I have a local set.html files that I need to parse and move to another directory). The main condition for this task is to make it possible to enter an arbitrary number of threads and determine at what number the program will stop adding in performance.
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <queue>
#include <ctime>
#include <set>
#include <chrono>
#include <atomic>
using namespace std;
class WebCrawler{
private:
const string start_path = "/";
const string end_path = "/";
int thread_counts;
string home_page;
queue<string> to_visit;
set<string> visited;
vector<thread> threads;
mutex mt1;
int count;
public:
WebCrawler(int thread_counts_, string root_)
:thread_counts(thread_counts_), home_page(root_) {
to_visit.push(root_);
visited.insert(root_);
count = 0;
}
void crawler(){
for(int i = 0; i<thread_counts; i++)
threads.push_back(thread(&WebCrawler::start_crawl, this));
for(auto &th: threads)
th.join();
cout<<"Count: "<<count<<endl;
}
void parse_html(string page_){
cout<<"Thread: "<<this_thread::get_id()<<" page: "<<page_<< endl;
ifstream page;
page.open(start_path+page_, ios::in);
string tmp;
getline(page, tmp);
page.close();
for(int i = 0; i<tmp.size(); i++){
if( tmp[i] == '<'){
string tmp_num ="";
while(tmp[i]!= '>'){
if(isdigit(tmp[i]))
tmp_num+=tmp[i];
i++;
}
tmp_num+= ".html";
if((visited.find(tmp_num) == visited.end())){
mt1.lock();
to_visit.push(tmp_num);
visited.insert(tmp_num);
mt1.unlock();
}
}
}
}
void move(string page_){
mt1.lock();
count++;
ofstream page;
page.open(end_path+page_, ios::out);
page.close();
mt1.unlock();
}
void start_crawl(){
cout<<"Thread started: "<<this_thread::get_id()<< endl;
string page;
while(!to_visit.empty()){
mt1.lock();
page = to_visit.front();
to_visit.pop();
mt1.unlock();
parse_html(page);
move(page);
}
}
};
int main(int argc, char const *argv\[])
{
int start_time = clock();
WebCrawler crawler(7, "0.html");
crawler.crawler();
int end_time = clock();
cout<<"Time: "<<(float)(end_time -start_time)/CLOCKS_PER_SEC<<endl;
cout<<thread::hardware_concurrency()<<endl;
return 0;
}
1 thread = Time: 0.709504
2 thread = Time: 0.668037
4 thread = Time: 0.762967
7 thread = Time: 0.781821
I've been trying to figure out for a week why my program is running slower even on two threads. I probably don't fully understand how mutex works, or perhaps the speed is lost during the joining of threads. Do you have any ideas how to fix it?
There are many ways to protect things in multithreading, implicit or explicit.
In addition to the totally untested code, there are also some implicit assumptions, for example of that int is large enough for your task, that must be considered.
Lets make a short analysis of what is needing protection.
Variables that are accessed from multiple threads
things that are const can be excluded
unless you const cast them
part of them are mutable
global objects like files or cout
could be overwritten
written from multiple threads
streams have their own internal locks
so you can write to a stream from multiple threads to cout
but you don't want it for the files in this case.
if multiple threads want to open the same file, you will get an error.
std::endl forces an synchronization, so change it to "\n" like a commenter noted.
So this boils down to:
queue<string> to_visit;
set<string> visited; // should be renamed visiting
int count;
<streams and files>
count is easy
std::atomic<int> count;
The files are implicit protected by your visited/visiting check, so they are good too. So the mutex in move can be removed.
The remaining needs an mutex each as they could be independently updated.
mutex mutTovisit, // formerly known as mut1.
mutVisiting.
Now we have the problem that we could deadlock with two mutexes, if we try to lock in different order in two places. You need to read up on all the lock stuff if you add more locks, scoped_lock and lock are good places to start.
Changing the code to
{
scoped_lock visitLock(mutVisiting); // unlocks at end of } even if stuff throws
if((visited.find(tmp_num) == visited.end())){
scoped_lock toLock(mutTo);
to_visit.push(tmp_num);
visited.insert(tmp_num);
}
}
And in this code there are multiple errors, that are hidden by the not thread safe access to to_visit and the randomness of the thread starts.
while(!to_visit.empty()){ // 2. now the next thread starts and sees its empty and stops
// 3. or worse it starts then hang at lock
mt1.lock();
page = to_visit.front(); // 4. and does things that are not good here with an empty to_visit
to_visit.pop(); // 1. is now empty after reading root
mt1.unlock();
parse_html(page);
move(page);
}
To solve this you need an (atomic?) counter, found(Pages) of current known unvisited pages so we know if are done. Then to start threads when there is new work that needs to be done we can use std::condition_variable(_any)
The general idea of the plan is to have the threads wait until work is available, then each time a new page is discovered notify_one to start work.
To Startup, set the found to 1 and notify_one once the threads have started, when a thread is done with the work decrease found. To stop when found is zero, the thread that decrease it to zero notify_all so they all can stop.
What you will find is that if the data is on a single slow disk, it is unlikely you will see much effect from more than 2 threads, if all files are currently cached in ram, you might see more effect.
I think there's a bottle neck on your move function. Each thread takes the same amount of time to go through that function. You could start with that
Suppose I have a complex C++ application that I need to debug with a lot of variables. I wanna avoid using std::cout and printf approaches (below there's an explaination why).
In order to explain my issue, I wrote a minimal example using chrono (This program calculates fps of its while cycle over time and increment i_times counter until it reaches 10k):
#include <chrono>
using chrono_hclock = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock;
int main(int argc, char** argv){
bool is_running = true;
float fps;
int i_times=0;
chrono_hclock::time_point start;
chrono_hclock::time_point end;
while(is_running){
start = chrono_hclock::now();
// Some code execution
end = chrono_hclock::now();
fps=(float)1e9/(float)std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::nanoseconds>(end-start).count());
if(++i_times==10000) is_running=false;
}
return 0;
}
I would like to debug this program and watch for fps and i_times variables continuosly over time, without stopping execution.
Of course I can simply use std::cout, printf or other means to output variables values redirecting them to stdout or a file while debugging and those are OK for simple types, but I have multiple variables which data type are struct-based and it would be creepy, time expensive and code bloating to write instructions to print each one of them. Also my application is a realtime video/audio H.264 encoder streaming with RTSP protocol and stopping at breakpoints means visualizing artifacts in my other decoder application because the encoder can't keep up with the decoder (because the encoder hit a breakpoint).
How can I solve this issue?
Thanks and regards!
The IDE I'm currently using for developing is Visual Studio 2019 Community.
I'm using the Local Windows Debugger.
I'm open to using alternative open source IDEs like VSCode or alternative debugging methods to solve this problem and/or to not be confinated into using a specific IDE.
To watch for specific multiple variables in VS I use the built-in Watch Window. While debugging with LWD, I add manually variables by right-clicking them in my source code and click Add Watch. Then those are showed in the Watch Window (Debug-Windows-Watch-Watch 1):
However I can only watch this window contents once I hit a breakpoint I set inside the while cycle, thus blocking execution, so that doesn't solve my issue.
You can use nonblocking breakpoint. First add the breakpoint. Then click on breakpoint settings or right click and select action.
Now you add a message like any string that is suggestive for you. And in brackets include the values to show, for instance
value of y is {y} and value of x is {x}
In the image is shown the value of i when it hits the breakpoint. Check the "Continue code execution" so breakpoint will not block execution. The shape of your breakpoint will change to red diagonal square. You can add also specific conditions if you click the Conditions checkbox.
Now while debugging all these debug messages will be shown in the output window:
In the above image it is showing the following message:
the value of i is {i}
By checking the "Conditions" you can add specific conditions, for instance i%100==0 and it will show the message only if i is divisible by 100.
This time your breakpoint will be marked with a + sign, meaning it has condition. Now while debugging there will be shown the i only when divisible by 100, so you can restrict the output to some more meaningful cases
The strict answer is "no" but...
I think I understand what you're trying to accomplish. This could be done by dumping the watched variables into to shared memory which is read by 2nd process. A watch and a break point in the 2nd would allow you to see the values in Visual Studio without interrupting the original application.
A few caveats:
UAC must be admin on both sides to open the memory handle
This wouldn't work with pointers as the 2nd program only has access to the shared memory
Windows anti-virus went nuts for the first few times I
ran this but eventually calmed down
Worker application:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <conio.h>
#include <tchar.h>
#include <windows.h>
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
PCWSTR SHARED_MEMORY_NAME = L"Global\\WatchMemory";
struct watch_collection // Container for everything we want to watch
{
int i;
int j;
int k;
};
using chrono_hclock = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock;
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
bool is_running = true;
float fps;
int i_times = 0;
chrono_hclock::time_point start;
chrono_hclock::time_point end;
HANDLE map_file;
void* shared_buffer;
// Set up the shared memory space
map_file = CreateFileMapping(INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE, NULL, PAGE_READWRITE, 0, sizeof(watch_collection), SHARED_MEMORY_NAME);
if (map_file == NULL)
{
return 1; // Didn't work, bail. Check UAC level!
}
shared_buffer = MapViewOfFile(map_file, FILE_MAP_ALL_ACCESS, 0, 0, sizeof(watch_collection));
if (shared_buffer == NULL)
{
CloseHandle(map_file); // Didn't work, clean up the file handle and bail.
return 1;
}
// Do some stuff
while (is_running) {
start = chrono_hclock::now();
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 10000; j++)
{
for (int k = 0; k < 10000; k++) {
watch_collection watches { i = i, j = j, k = k };
CopyMemory(shared_buffer, (void*)&watches, (sizeof(watch_collection))); // Copy the watches to the shared memory space
// Do more things...
}
}
}
end = chrono_hclock::now();
fps = (float)1e9 / (float)std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::nanoseconds>(end - start).count();
if (++i_times == 1000000) is_running = false;
}
// Clean up the shared memory buffer and handle
UnmapViewOfFile(shared_buffer);
CloseHandle(map_file);
return 0;
}
Watcher application:
#include <windows.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <conio.h>
#include <tchar.h>
#pragma comment(lib, "user32.lib")
PCWSTR SHARED_MEMORY_NAME = L"Global\\WatchMemory";
struct watch_collection // Container for everything we want to watch
{
int i;
int j;
int k;
};
int main()
{
HANDLE map_file;
void* shared_buffer;
bool is_running = true;
watch_collection watches; // Put a watch on watches
// Connect to the shared memory
map_file = OpenFileMapping(FILE_MAP_ALL_ACCESS, FALSE, SHARED_MEMORY_NAME);
if (map_file == NULL)
{
return 1; // Couldn't open the handle, bail. Check UAC level!
}
shared_buffer = MapViewOfFile(map_file, FILE_MAP_ALL_ACCESS, 0, 0, sizeof(watch_collection));
if (shared_buffer == NULL)
{
CloseHandle(map_file);
return 1;
}
// Loop forever
while (is_running)
{
CopyMemory((void*)&watches, shared_buffer, (sizeof(watch_collection)));
} // Breakpoint here
UnmapViewOfFile(shared_buffer);
CloseHandle(map_file);
return 0;
}
I have a Visual Studio project that worked fine until I tried to implement multithreading. The project acquires images from a GigE camera, and after acquiring 10 images, a video is made from the acquired images.
The program flow was such that the program didn't acquire images when it was making the video. I wanted to change this, so I created another thread that makes the videos from the images. What I wanted is that the program will acquire images continuously, after 10 images are acquired, another thread runs in parallel that will make the video. This will continue until I stop the program, 10 images are acquired, video from these 10 images is made in parallel while the next 10 images are acquired and so on.
I haven't created threads before so I followed the tutorial on this website. Similar to the website, I created a thread for the function that saves the video. The function that creates the video takes the 10 images as a vector argument. I execute join on this thread just before the line where my main function terminates.
For clarity, here's pseudo-code for what I've implemented:
#include ...
#include <thread>
using namespace std;
thread threads[1];
vector<Image> images;
void thread_method(vector<Image> & images){
// Save vector of images to video
// Clear the vector of images
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
// Some stuff
while(TRUE)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//Acquire Image
//Put image pointer in images vector named images
}
threads[0] = thread(thread_method, images)
}
// stuff
threads[0].join();
cout << endl << "Done! Press Enter to exit..." << endl;
getchar();
return 0;
}
When I run the project now, a message pops up saying that the Project.exe has triggered a breakpoint. The project breaks in report_runtime_error.cpp in static bool __cdecl issue_debug_notification(wchar_t const* const message) throw().
I'm printing some cout messages on the console to help me understand what's going on. What happens is that the program acquires 10 images, then the thread for saving the video starts running. As there are 10 images, 10 images have to be appended to the video. The message that says Project.exe has triggered a breakpoint pops up after the second time 10 images are acquired, at this point the parallel thread has only appended 6 images from the first acquired set of images to the video.
The output contains multiple lines of thread XXXX has exited with code 0, after that the output says
Debug Error!
Program: ...Path\Program.exe
abort() has been called
(Press Retry to debug the application)
Program.exe has triggered a breakpoint.
I can't explain all this in a comment. I'm dropping this here because it looks like OP is heading in some bad directions and I'd like to head him off before the cliff. Caleth has caught the big bang and provided a solution for avoiding it, but that bang is only a symptom of OP's and the solution with detach is somewhat questionable.
using namespace std;
Why is "using namespace std" considered bad practice?
thread threads[1];
An array 1 is pretty much pointless. If we don't know how many threads there will be, use a vector. Plus there is no good reason for this to be a global variable.
vector<Image> images;
Again, no good reason for this to be global and many many reasons for it NOT to be.
void thread_method(vector<Image> & images){
Pass by reference can save you some copying, but A) you can't copy a reference and threads copy the parameters. OK, so use a pointer or std::ref. You can copy those. But you generally don't want to. Problem 1: Multiple threads using the same data? Better be read only or protected from concurrent modification. This includes the thread generating the vector. 2. Is the reference still valid?
// Save vector of images to video
// Clear the vector of images
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
// Some stuff
while(TRUE)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//Acquire Image
//Put image pointer in images vector named images
}
threads[0] = thread(thread_method, images)
Bad for reasons Caleth covered. Plus images keeps growing. The first thread, even if copied, has ten elements. The second has the first ten plus another ten. This is weird, and probably not what OP wants. References or pointers to this vector are fatal. The vector would be resized while other threads were using it, invalidating the old datastore and making it impossible to safely iterate.
}
// stuff
threads[0].join();
Wrong for reasons covered by Caleth
cout << endl << "Done! Press Enter to exit..." << endl;
getchar();
return 0;
}
The solution to joining on the threads is the same as just about every Stack Overflow question that doesn't resolve to "Use a std::string": Use a std::vector.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <thread>
void thread_method(std::vector<int> images){
std::cout << images[0] << '\n'; // output something so we can see work being done.
// we may or may not see all of the numbers in order depending on how
// the threads are scheduled.
}
int main() // not using arguments, leave them out.
{
int count = 0; // just to have something to show
// no need for threads to be global.
std::vector<std::thread> threads; // using vector so we can store multiple threads
// Some stuff
while(count < 10) // better-defined terminating condition for testing purposes
{
// every thread gets its own vector. No chance of collisions or duplicated
// effort
std::vector<int> images; // don't have Image, so stubbing it out with int
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
images.push_back(count);
}
// create and store thread.
threads.emplace_back(thread_method,std::move(images));
count ++;
}
// stuff
for (std::thread &temp: threads) // wait for all threads to exit
{
temp.join();
}
// std::endl is expensive. It's a linefeed and s stream flush, so save it for
// when you really need to get a message out immediately
std::cout << "\nDone! Press Enter to exit..." << std::endl;
char temp;
std::cin >>temp; // sticking with standard librarly all the way through
return 0;
}
To better explain
threads.emplace_back(thread_method,std::move(images));
this created a thread inside threads (emplace_back) that will call thread_method with a copy of images. Odds are good that the compiler would have recognized that this was the end of the road for this particular instance of images and eliminated the copying, but if not, std::move should give it the hint.
You are overwriting your one thread in the while loop. If it's still running, the program is aborted. You have to join or detach each thread value.
You could instead do
#include // ...
#include <thread>
// pass by value, as it's potentially outliving the loop
void thread_method(std::vector<Image> images){
// Save vector of images to video
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
// Some stuff
while(TRUE)
{
std::vector<Image> images; // new vector each time round
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//Acquire Image
//Put image pointer in images vector named images
}
// std::thread::thread will forward this move
std::thread(thread_method, std::move(images)).detach(); // not join
}
// stuff
// this is somewhat of a lie now, we have to wait for the threads too
std::cout << std::endl << "Done! Press Enter to exit..." << std::endl;
std::getchar();
return 0;
}
I wrote the following code, that must do search of all possible combinations of two digits in a string whose length is specified:
#include <iostream>
#include <Windows.h>
int main ()
{
using namespace std;
cout<<"Enter length of array"<<endl;
int size;
cin>>size;
int * ps=new int [size];
for (int i=0; i<size; i++)
ps[i]=3;
int k=4;
SetPriorityClass(GetCurrentProcess(), HIGH_PRIORITY_CLASS);
while (k>=0)
{
for (int bi=0; bi<size; bi++)
std::cout<<ps[bi];
std::cout<<std::endl;
int i=size-1;
if (ps[i]==3)
{
ps[i]=4;
continue;
}
if (ps[i]==4)
{
while (ps[i]==4)
{
ps[i]=3;
--i;
}
ps[i]=4;
if (i<k)
k--;
}
}
}
When programm was executing on Windows 7, I saw that load of CPU is only 10-15%, in order to make my code worked faster, i decided to change priority of my programm to High. But when i did it there was no increase in work and load of CPU stayed the same. Why CPU load doesn't change? Incorrect statement SetPriorityClass(GetCurrentProcess(), HIGH_PRIORITY_CLASS);? Or this code cannot work faster?
If your CPU is not working at it's full capacity it means that your application is not capable of using it because of causes like I/O, sleeps, memory or other device throughtput capabilties.
Most probably, however, it means that your CPU has 2+ cores and your application is single-threaded. In this case you have to go through the process of paralellizing your application, which is often neither simple nor fast.
In case of the code you posted, the most time consuming operation is actually (most probably) printing the results. Remove the cout code and see for yourself how fast the code will work.
Increasing the priority of your programm won't help much.
What you need to do is to remove the cout from your calculations. Store your computations and output them afterwards.
As others have noted it might also be that you use a multi-core machine. Anyway removing any output from your computation loop is always a first step to use 100% of your machines computation power for that and not waste cycles on output.
std::vector<int> results;
results.reserve(1000); // this should ideally match the number of results you expect
while (k>=0)
{
for (int bi=0; bi<size; bi++){
results.push_back(ps[bi]);
}
int i=size-1;
if (ps[i]==3)
{
ps[i]=4;
continue;
}
if (ps[i]==4)
{
while (ps[i]==4)
{
ps[i]=3;
--i;
}
ps[i]=4;
if (i<k)
k--;
}
}
// now here yuo can output your data
for(auto&& res : results){
cout << res << "\n"; // \n to not force flush
}
cout << endl; // now force flush
What's probably happening is you're on a multi-core/multi-thread machine and you're running on only one thread, the rest of the CPU power is just sitting idle. So you'll want to multi-thread your code. Look at boost thread.
I am developing a simple game in c++, a chase-the-dot style one, where you must click a drawn circle on the display and then it jumps to another random location with every click, but I want to make the game end after 60 seconds or so, write the score to a text file and then upon launching the program read from the text file and store the information into an array and somehow rearrange it to create a high score table.
I think I can figure out the high score and mouse clicking in a certain area myself, but I am completely stuck with creating a possible timer.
Any help appreciated, cheers!
In C++11 there is easy access to timers. For example:
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << "begin\n";
std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point tend = std::chrono::steady_clock::now()
+ std::chrono::minutes(1);
while (std::chrono::steady_clock::now() < tend)
{
// do your game
}
std::cout << "end\n";
}
Your platform may or may not support <chrono> yet. There is a boost implementation of <chrono>.
Without reference to a particular framework or even the OS this is unanswerable.
In SDL there is SDL_GetTicks() which suits the purpose.
On linux, there is the general purpose clock_gettime or gettimeofday that should work pretty much everywhere (but beware of the details).
Win32 API has several function calls related to this, including Timer callback mechanisms, such as GetTickCount, Timers etc. (article)
Using timers is usually closely related to the meme of 'idle' processing. So you'd want to search for that topic as well (and this is where the message pump comes in, because the message pump decides when (e.g.) WM_IDLE messages get sent; Gtk has a similar concept of Idle hooks and I reckon pretty much every UI framework does)
Usually GUI program has so called "message pump" loop. Check of that timer should be a part of your loop:
while(running)
{
if( current_time() > end_time )
{
// time is over ...
break;
}
if( next_ui_message(msg) )
dispatch(msg);
}
Try this one out:
//Creating Digital Watch in C++
#include<iostream>
#include<Windows.h>
using namespace std;
struct time{
int hr,min,sec;
};
int main()
{
time a;
a.hr = 0;
a.min = 0;
a.sec = 0;
for(int i = 0; i<24; i++)
{
if(a.hr == 23)
{
a.hr = 0;
}
for(int j = 0; j<60; j++)
{
if(a.min == 59)
{
a.min = 0;
}
for(int k = 0; k<60; k++)
{
if(a.sec == 59)
{
a.sec = 0;
}
cout<<a.hr<<" : "<<a.min<<" : "<<a.sec<<endl;
a.sec++;
Sleep(1000);
system("Cls");
}
a.min++;
}
a.hr++;
}
}
See the details at: http://www.programmingtunes.com/creating-timer-c/#sthash.j9WLtng2.dpuf