sa_handler function; can't access class member - c++

I am trying to build a multi threaded program that will create four instances of a Child and "run" a set of "expensive" Jobs. The parent will send a signal indicating when they shall all start. Now, each child thread must then catch that signal. It has inside of it a sig_handler. It's a private class inside of Child.
So far I have it defined as:
private:
class sig_handler {
typedef struct sigaction sigAct;
Shared* sh;
//============
void whatSig();
public:
sig_handler( Shared* s );
sigAct action;
sigset_t signalset; // Just want siguser and sigquit
static void catchSig( int sig ); // interacts with the shared resource
// it starts up the threads
};
First off, is it even ok to have a class as a signal handler? If it is ok (which would certainly make the readibility better), how would we implement it?
I am trying to catch SIGUSR1 so that I can change a flag in Shared memory. Each thread has access to Shared memory through a pointer to this object, i.e. Shared* share. This is done using a class to act as a kind of shared base.
Now here is what I really need answered. I begin setting up my sigset_t signalSet:
Child::sig_handler::sig_handler( Shared* s ) {
sh = s;
sigemptyset(&signalset);
sigaddset(&signalset, SIGUSR1); // Add these to the now empty set
sigaddset(&signalset, SIGQUIT);
action.sa_handler = catchSig; // 1
action.sa_mask = signalset;
action.sa_flags = 0;
sigaction(SIGUSR1, &action, NULL); // attach the class member action
}
Really pay attention to line 1. This is a critical spot. This I think has to be a static or global function. This is where an error can be happening. When I make my class method catchSig(int sig) non static, line 1 complains Reference to a non-static function call must be called. I have it defined as such when this happens: void catchSig( int sig );
When I define it as static void catchSig( int sig );, the compiler complains on line 2.
void Child::sig_handler::catchSig(int sig) {
sh->startflag; // 2
}
It says, Invalid use of 'sh' in static member function. I need to be able to have access to this variable. How can I fix it so that I can have my sig_handler class, and share through catchSig()?
Update:
I implemented StoryTeller's suggestion of using a pointer to this. While it worked to stop the complaining of the compiler, I still have a buildtime error. I altered the definition of sig_handler to now be this:
private:
class sig_handler {
typedef struct sigaction sigAct;
Shared* sh;
static sig_handler* self;
//============
void whatSig();
public:
sig_handler( Shared* s );
sigAct action;
sigset_t signalset;
static void catchSig( int sig ); // interacts with the shared resource
// it starts up the threads
};
Take note of the new static pointer to itself. This was done so that I can have access to the variable sh, the shared resource that I need. Which I use as such:
void Child::sig_handler::catchSig(int sig) {
self->sh->setStartFlag(true); // this was were it used to complain
}
The sig_handler is created in the Child constructor (sigHand = new sig_handler(share)). I get a build time error stated below. What is happening? How can this be fixed?
"Child::sig_handler::self", referenced from:
Child::sig_handler::sig_handler(Shared*) in Child.o
Child::sig_handler::catchSig(int) in Child.o
ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
Update 2:
Essentially, it's not possible to make a sig_handler class unfortunately.

Related

Undefined refernce static member C++ [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Can't set value of static object field (error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol)
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I'm sick of this, I'm really exhausted. I am new in C++. But I have read a lot about that ,but still doesn't understand what is the correct to implement this.
I have just copied all code from this article Signal Handling in C++
BUT it still doesn't work !!!! I created new class Signal Handler.... Copy everything from this article BUT still this .... error message "Undefined reference .......". I am really confused about this. Please explain how to do this correctly and why I always get this message.
Here is just code copied from the article.
SignalHandler.h
#ifndef SIGNALHANDLER_H
#define SIGNALHANDLER_H
#include "eventhandler.h"
#include <signal.h>
class SignalHandler
{
public:
// Entry point.
static SignalHandler *getInstance (void);
// Register an event handler <eh> for <signum>
// and return a pointer to any existing <Event_Handler>
// that was previously registered to handle <signum>.
EventHandler* registerHandler (int signum,EventHandler *eh);
// Remove the <Event_Handler> for <signum>
// by setting the slot in the <signal_handlers_>
// table to NULL.
int removeHandler (int signum);
private:
// Ensure we're a Singleton.
SignalHandler (void);
// Singleton pointer.
static SignalHandler *instance;
// Entry point adapter installed into <sigaction>
// (must be a static method or a stand-alone
// extern "C" function).
static void dispatcher (int signum);
// Table of pointers to concrete <Event_Handler>s
// registered by applications. NSIG is the number of
// signals defined in </usr/include/sys/signal.h>.
static EventHandler *signalHandlers[NSIG];
};
#endif // SIGNALHANDLER_H
SignalHandler.cpp
#include "signalhandler.h"
EventHandler* SignalHandler::registerHandler (int signum,EventHandler *eh)
{
// Copy the <old_eh> from the <signum> slot in
// the <signal_handlers_> table.
EventHandler *oldEh = SignalHandler::signalHandlers[signum];
// Store <eh> into the <signum> slot in the
// <signal_handlers_> table.
SignalHandler::signalHandlers[signum] = eh;
// Register the <dispatcher> to handle this
// <signum>.
struct sigaction sa;
sa.sa_handler = SignalHandler::dispatcher;
sigemptyset (&sa.sa_mask);
sa.sa_flags = 0;
sigaction (signum, &sa, 0);
return oldEh;
}
void SignalHandler::dispatcher (int signum)
{
// Perform a sanity check...
if (SignalHandler::signalHandlers[signum] != 0) {
// Dispatch the handler's hook method.
SignalHandler::signalHandlers[signum]->handleSignal(signum);
}
}
WHY am I getting this messages ...............
error: undefined reference to `SignalHandler::signalHandlers'
error: undefined reference to `SignalHandler::signalHandlers'
Note that I have just copied this from the article.
I really hope for your help.Thanks.
You have to define the static array. Inside the class definition it is only declared. Write in the cpp module
EventHandler * SignalHandler::signalHandlers[NSIG];
Every function and object which is ODR-used must be defined.
And static SignalHandler *instance; in class-scope only declares that member, it does not define it.
Add the definition to exactly one translation-unit (.cpp-file).
SignalHandler* Signalhandler::instance;
Same for all the other static members.

pthread_key_create destructor not getting called

As per pthread_key_create man page we can associate a destructor to be called at thread shut down. My problem is that the destructor function I have registered is not being called. Gist of my code is as follows.
static pthread_key_t key;
static pthread_once_t tls_init_flag = PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT;
void destructor(void *t) {
// thread local data structure clean up code here, which is not getting called
}
void create_key() {
pthread_key_create(&key, destructor);
}
// This will be called from every thread
void set_thread_specific() {
ts = new ts_stack; // Thread local data structure
pthread_once(&tls_init_flag, create_key);
pthread_setspecific(key, ts);
}
Any idea what might prevent this destructor being called? I am also using atexit() at moment to do some cleanup in the main thread. Is there any chance that is interfering with destructor function being called? I tried removing that as well. Still didn't work though. Also I am not clear if I should handle the main thread as a separate case with atexit. (It's a must to use atexit by the way, since I need to do some application specific cleanup at application exit)
This is by design.
The main thread exits (by returning or calling exit()), and that doesn't use pthread_exit(). POSIX documents pthread_exit calling the thread-specific destructors.
You could add pthread_exit() at the end of main. Alternatively, you can use atexit to do your destruction. In that case, it would be clean to set the thread-specific value to NULL so in case the pthread_exit was invoked, the destruction wouldn't happen twice for that key.
UPDATE Actually, I've solved my immediate worries by simply adding this to my global unit test setup function:
::atexit([] { ::pthread_exit(0); });
So, in context of my global fixture class MyConfig:
struct MyConfig {
MyConfig() {
GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_VERIFY_VERSION;
::atexit([] { ::pthread_exit(0); });
}
~MyConfig() { google::protobuf::ShutdownProtobufLibrary(); }
};
Some of the references used:
http://www.resolvinghere.com/sof/6357154.shtml
https://sourceware.org/ml/pthreads-win32/2008/msg00007.html
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_key_create.html
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_exit.html
PS. Of course c++11 introduced <thread> so you have better and more portable primitves to work with.
It's already in sehe's answer, just to present the key points in a compact way:
pthread_key_create() destructor calls are triggered by a call to pthread_exit().
If the start routine of a thread returns, the behaviour is as if pthread_exit() was called (i. e., destructor calls are triggered).
However, if main() returns, the behaviour is as if exit() was called — no destructor calls are triggered.
This is explained in http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_create.html. See also C++17 6.6.1p5 or C11 5.1.2.2.3p1.
I wrote a quick test and the only thing I changed was moving the create_key call of yours outside of the set_thread_specific.
That is, I called it within the main thread.
I then saw my destroy get called when the thread routine exited.
I call destructor() manually at the end of main():
void * ThreadData = NULL;
if ((ThreadData = pthread_getspecific(key)) != NULL)
destructor(ThreadData);
Of course key should be properly initialized earlier in main() code.
PS. Calling Pthread_Exit() at the end to main() seems to hang entire application...
Your initial thought of handling the main thread as a separate case with atexit worked best for me.
Be ware that pthread_exit(0) overwrites the exit value of the process. For example, the following program will exit with status of zero even though main() returns with number three:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
class ts_stack {
public:
ts_stack () {
printf ("init\n");
}
~ts_stack () {
printf ("done\n");
}
};
static void cleanup (void);
static pthread_key_t key;
static pthread_once_t tls_init_flag = PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT;
void destructor(void *t) {
// thread local data structure clean up code here, which is not getting called
delete (ts_stack*) t;
}
void create_key() {
pthread_key_create(&key, destructor);
atexit(cleanup);
}
// This will be called from every thread
void set_thread_specific() {
ts_stack *ts = new ts_stack (); // Thread local data structure
pthread_once(&tls_init_flag, create_key);
pthread_setspecific(key, ts);
}
static void cleanup (void) {
pthread_exit(0); // <-- Calls destructor but sets exit status to zero as a side effect!
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[]) {
set_thread_specific();
return 3; // Attempt to exit with status of 3
}
I had similar issue as yours: pthread_setspecific sets a key, but the destructor never gets called. To fix it we simply switched to thread_local in C++. You could also do something like if that change is too complicated:
For example, assume you have some class ThreadData that you want some action to be done on when the thread finishes execution. You define the destructor something on these lines:
void destroy_my_data(ThreadlData* t) {
delete t;
}
When your thread starts, you allocate memory for ThreadData* instance and assign a destructor to it like this:
ThreadData* my_data = new ThreadData;
thread_local ThreadLocalDestructor<ThreadData> tld;
tld.SetDestructorData(my_data, destroy_my_data);
pthread_setspecific(key, my_data)
Notice that ThreadLocalDestructor is defined as thread_local. We rely on C++11 mechanism that when the thread exits, the destructor of ThreadLocalDestructor will be automatically called, and ~ThreadLocalDestructor is implemented to call function destroy_my_data.
Here is the implementation of ThreadLocalDestructor:
template <typename T>
class ThreadLocalDestructor
{
public:
ThreadLocalDestructor() : m_destr_func(nullptr), m_destr_data(nullptr)
{
}
~ThreadLocalDestructor()
{
if (m_destr_func) {
m_destr_func(m_destr_data);
}
}
void SetDestructorData(void (*destr_func)(T*), T* destr_data)
{
m_destr_data = destr_data;
m_destr_func = destr_func;
}
private:
void (*m_destr_func)(T*);
T* m_destr_data;
};

Communication between 2 threads C++ UNIX

I need your help with wxWidgets. I have 2 threads (1 wxTimer and 1 wxThread), I need communicate between this 2 threads. I have a class that contains methods to read/write variable in this class. (Share Memory with this object)
My problem is: I instanciate with "new" this class in one thread but I don't know that necessary in second thread. Because if instanciate too, adress of variable are differents and I need communicate so I need even value in variable :/
I know about need wxSemaphore to prevent error when to access same time.
Thanks you for your help !
EDIT: My code
So, I need make a link with my code. Thanks you for all ;)
It's my declaration for my wxTimer in my class: EvtFramePrincipal (IHM)
In .h
EvtFramePrincipal( wxWindow* parent );
#include <wx/timer.h>
wxTimer m_timer;
in .cpp -Constructor EvtFramePrincipal
EvtFramePrincipal::EvtFramePrincipal( wxWindow* parent )
:
FramePrincipal( parent ),m_timer(this)
{
Connect(wxID_ANY,wxEVT_TIMER,wxTimerEventHandler(EvtFramePrincipal::OnTimer),NULL,this);
m_timer.Start(250);
}
So I call OnTimer method every 250ms with this line.
For my second thread start from EvtFramePrincipal (IHM):
in .h EvtFramePrincipal
#include "../Client.h"
Client *ClientIdle;
in .cpp EvtFramePrincipal
ClientIdle= new Client();
ClientIdle->Run();
In .h Client (Thread)
class Client: public wxThread
public:
Client();
virtual void *Entry();
virtual void OnExit();
In .cpp Client (Thread)
Client::Client() : wxThread()
{
}
So here, no probleme, thread are ok ?
Now I need that this class that use like a messenger between my 2 threads.
#ifndef PARTAGE_H
#define PARTAGE_H
#include "wx/string.h"
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
class Partage
{
public:
Partage();
virtual ~Partage();
bool Return_Capteur_Aval()
{ return Etat_Capteur_Aval; }
bool Return_Capteur_Amont()
{ return Etat_Capteur_Amont; }
bool Return_Etat_Barriere()
{ return Etat_Barriere; }
bool Return_Ouverture()
{ return Demande_Ouverture; }
bool Return_Fermeture()
{ return Demande_Fermeture; }
bool Return_Appel()
{ return Appel_Gardien; }
void Set_Ouverture(bool Etat)
{ Demande_Ouverture=Etat; }
void Set_Fermeture(bool Etat)
{ Demande_Fermeture=Etat; }
void Set_Capteur_Aval(bool Etat)
{ Etat_Capteur_Aval=Etat; }
void Set_Capteur_Amont(bool Etat)
{ Etat_Capteur_Amont=Etat; }
void Set_Barriere(bool Etat)
{ Etat_Barriere=Etat; }
void Set_Appel(bool Etat)
{ Appel_Gardien=Etat; }
void Set_Code(wxString valeur_code)
{ Code=valeur_code; }
void Set_Badge(wxString numero_badge)
{ Badge=numero_badge; }
void Set_Message(wxString message)
{
Message_Affiche=wxT("");
Message_Affiche=message;
}
wxString Get_Message()
{
return Message_Affiche;
}
wxString Get_Code()
{ return Code; }
wxString Get_Badge()
{ return Badge; }
protected:
private:
bool Etat_Capteur_Aval;
bool Etat_Capteur_Amont;
bool Etat_Barriere;
bool Demande_Ouverture;
bool Demande_Fermeture;
bool Appel_Gardien;
wxString Code;
wxString Badge;
wxString Message_Affiche;
};
#endif // PARTAGE_H
So in my EvtFramePrincipal(wxTimer), I make a new for this class. But in other thread (wxThread), what I need to do to communicate ?
If difficult to understand so sorry :/
Then main thread should create first the shared variable. After it, you can create both threads and pass them a pointer to the shared variable.
So, both of them, know how interact with the shared variable. You need to implement a mutex or wxSemaphore in the methods of the shared variable.
You can use a singleton to get access to a central object.
Alternatively, create the central object before creating the threads and pass the reference to the central object to threads.
Use a mutex in the central object to prevent simultaneous access.
Creating one central object on each thread is not an option.
EDIT 1: Adding more details and examples
Let's start with some assumptions. The OP indicated that
I have 2 threads (1 wxTimer and 1 wxThread)
To tell the truth, I know very little of the wxWidgets framework, but there's always the documentation. So I can see that:
wxTimer provides a Timer that will execute the wxTimer::Notify() method when the timer expires. The documentation doesn't say anything about thread-execution (although there's a note A timer can only be used from the main thread which I'm not sure how to understand). I can guess that we should expect the Notify method will be executed in some event-loop or timer-loop thread or threads.
wxThread provides a model for Thread execution, that runs the wxThread::Entry() method. Running a wxThread object will actually create a thread that runs the Entry method.
So your problem is that you need same object to be accessible in both wxTimer::Notify() and wxThread::Entry() methods.
This object:
It's not one variable but a lot of that store in one class
e.g.
struct SharedData {
// NOTE: This is very simplistic.
// since the information here will be modified/read by
// multiple threads, it should be protected by one or more
// mutexes
// so probably a class with getter/setters will be better suited
// so that access with mutexes can be enforced within the class.
SharedData():var2(0) { }
std::string var1;
int var2;
};
of which you have somewhere an instance of that:
std::shared_ptr<SharedData> myData=std::make_shared<SharedData>();
or perhaps in pointer form or perhaps as a local variable or object attribute
Option 1: a shared reference
You're not really using wxTimer or wxThread, but classes that inherit from them (at least the wxThread::Entry() is pure virtual. In the case of wxTimer you could change the owner to a different wxEvtHandler that will receive the event, but you still need to provide an implementation.
So you can have
class MyTimer: public wxTimer {
public:
void Notify() {
// Your code goes here
// but it can access data through the local reference
}
void setData(const std::shared_ptr<SharedData> &data) {
mLocalReference=data
}
private:
std::shared_ptr<SharedData> mLocalReferece
};
That will need to be set:
MyTimer timer;
timer.setData(myData);
timer.StartOnece(10000); // wake me up in 10 secs.
Similarly for the Thread
class MyThread: public wxThread {
public:
void Entry() {
// Your code goes here
// but it can access data through the local reference
}
void setData(const std::shared_ptr<SharedData> &data) {
mLocalReference=data
}
private:
std::shared_ptr<SharedData> mLocalReferece
};
That will need to be set:
MyThread *thread=new MyThread();
thread->setData(myData);
thread->Run(); // threads starts running.
Option2 Using a singleton.
Sometimes you cannot modify MyThread or MyTimer... or it is too difficult to route the reference to myData to the thread or timer instances... or you're just too lazy or too busy to bother (beware of your technical debt!!!)
We can tweak the SharedData into:
struct SharedData {
std::string var1;
int var2;
static SharedData *instance() {
// NOTE that some mutexes are needed here
// to prevent the case where first initialization
// is executed simultaneously from different threads
// allocating two objects, one of them leaked.
if(!sInstance) {
sInstance=new SharedData();
}
return sInstance
}
private:
SharedData():var2(0) { } // Note we've made the constructor private
static SharedData *sInstance=0;
};
This object (because it only allows the creation of a single object) can be accessed from
either MyTimer::Notify() or MyThread::Entry() with
SharedData::instance()->var1;
Interlude: why Singletons are evil
(or why the easy solution might bite you in the future).
What is so bad about singletons?
Why Singletons are Evil
Singletons Are Evil
My main reasons are:
There's one and only one instance... and you might think that you only need one now, but who knows what the future will hold, you've taken an easy solution for a coding problem that has far reaching consequences architecturally and that might be difficult to revert.
It will not allow doing dependency injection (because the actual class is used in the accessing the object).
Still, I don't think is something to completely avoid. It has its uses, it can solve your problem and it might save your day.
Option 3. Some middle ground.
You could still organize your data around a central repository with methods to access different instances (or different implementations) of the data.
This central repository can be a singleton (it is really is central, common and unique), but is not the shared data, but what is used to retrieve the shared data, e.g. identified by some ID (that might be easier to share between the threads using option 1)
Something like:
CentralRepository::instance()->getDataById(sharedId)->var1;
EDIT 2: Comments after OP posted (more) code ;)
It seems that your object EvtFramePrincipal will execute both the timer call back and it will contain the ClientIdle pointer to a Client object (the thread)... I'd do:
Make the Client class contain a Portage attribute (a pointer or a smart pointer).
Make the EvtFramePrincipal contain a Portage attribute (a pointer or smart pointer). I guess this will have the lifecycle of the whole application, so the Portage object can share that lifecycle too.
Add Mutexes locking to all methods setting and getting in the Portage attribute, since it can be accessed from multiple threads.
After the Client object is instantiated set the reference to the Portage object that the EvtFramePrincipal contains.
Client can access Portage because we've set its reference when it was created. When the Entry method is run in its thread it will be able to access it.
EvtFramePrincipal can access the Portage (because it is one of its attributes), so the event handler for the timer event will be able to access it.

Alternative to postThreadMessage/peekmessage?

There's a (static) thread in my C++ application, frequently doing something. To exchange information between the thread and my application I use methods PostThreadMessage and PeekMessage.
Due to some reason I can't use these methods anymore but don't know a good alternative. Does anybody have an advice? I just want to exchange simple parameters.
There's no reason why you can't "exchange simple object with the main thread" as you said in a comment. A common pattern for sharing an instance of a class between threads is to do something like this:-
Declare your class with a static function that can be targeted by _beginthread and an instance function that does the work:
class CMyClass
{
// ... other class declarations ...
private:
static void __cdecl _ThreadInit(void *pParam); // thread initial function
void ThreadFunction(); // thread instance function
void StartThread(); // function to spawn a thread
// ... other class declarations ...
};
Define the functions something like this:
void CMyClass::StartThread()
{
// function to spawn a thread (pass a pointer to this instance)
_beginthread(CMyClass::_ThreadInit, 0, this);
}
void __cdecl CMyClass:_ThreadInit(void *pParam)
{
// thread initial function - delegate to instance
CMyClass *pInstance = (CMyClass*)pParam;
pInstance->ThreadFunction();
}
void CMyClass:ThreadFunction()
{
// thread instance function is running on another
// thread but has (hopefully synchronised) access
// to all of the member variables of the CMyClass
// that spawned it ....
}
Makes sense? The general idea is just to use the static function with a passed this pointer to connect back to a specific instance of the class.

Cannot lock Qt mutex (QReadWriteLock) Access violation writing

Some background for this question is my previous question:
non-member function pointer as a callback in API to member function (it may well be irrelevant).
The callback launches a thread that writes some data. There is another thread that reads the same data, and that results in some crashes.
I just took a crash course in multi-threading (thanks SO), and here is my attempt to guarantee that the data isn't accessed by the writer and the reader at the same time. I'm using some mutex mechanism from Qt (QReadWriteLock).
#include <QSharedPointer>
#include <QReadWriteLock>
Class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass();
bool open();
float getData();
void streamCB(void* userdata);
protected:
float private_data_;
QSharedPointer<QReadWriteLock> lock_;
};
// callback wrapper from non-member C API to member function void
__stdcall streamCBWrapper(void* userdata)
{
static_cast<MyClass*>(userdata)->streamCB(userdata);
}
// constructor
MyClass::MyClass()
{
lock_ = QSharedPointer<QReadWriteLock>(new QReadWriteLock());
lock_->lockForWrite();
private_data_ = getData();
lock_->unlock();
}
// member callback
void MyClass:streamCB(void* userdata)
{
float a = getData();
lock_->lockForWrite(); //*** fails here
private_data_ = a;
lock_->unlock();
}
I have a segmentation fault while running the program. The VS debugger says Access violation writing location 0x00fedbed. on the line that I marked //*** fails here.
The lock worked in the constructor, but not in the callback.
Any idea what goes wrong? What should I look at? (and how can I refine my question)
Thanks!
Other relevant thread
Cannot access private member declared in class 'QReadWriteLock'Error 1 error C2248: 'QReadWriteLock::QReadWriteLock' (I used the QSharedPointer suggestion)
Edit 1:
The callback is set up
bool MyClass::open()
{
// stuffs
int mid = 0;
set_stream_callback(&streamCBWrapper, &mid);
// more stuffs
return true;
}
Edit 2:
Thank you for all the suggestions.
So my mistake(s) may not be due at all to the mutex, but to my lack of understanding of the API? I'm quite confused.. Here is the API doc for the set_stream_callback.
typedef void (__stdcall *STREAM_CALLBACK)(void *userdata);
/*! #brief Register a callback to be invoked when all subscribed fields have been updated
*
* #param streamCB pointer to callback function
* #param userdata pointer to private data to be passed back as argument to callback
* #return 0 if successful, error code otherwise
*/
__declspec(dllimport) int __stdcall set_stream_callback(
STREAM_CALLBACK streamCB, void *userdata);
Good example why sufficient code example is required.
If I interpret your callback syntax correctly,
set_stream_callback(&streamCBWrapper, &mid);
sets streamCBWrapper as callback function, while &mid is the pointer to userdata.
In the callback, you are actually now casting a pointer to int to MyClass, then try to access a member variable of a non-existant object.
Make sure to pass an instance of MyClass to your callback. I assume this would be this in your case.
Sounds fundamentally like a threading issue to me. Since you're using the Qt mutexing anyway, you might consider using Qt's threading mechanisms and sending signals and slots between the threads. They're pretty well documented and easy to use as long as you follow the suggestions here and here.