std::lock_guard causing undefined behavior - c++

Question

Edit: As it seems, the problem was me not actually creating a local instance of a lock_guard, but merely an anonymous temporary, which got destroyed again immediately, as pointed out by the comments below.
Edit2: Enabling clang's thread sanitizer helps to pinpoint these kinds of problems at run-time. It can be enabled via
clang++ -std=c++14 -stdlib=libc++ -fsanitize=thread *.cpp -pthread
This is probably in some way a duplicate question, but I couldn't find anything, so if it really is duplicate I'm sorry. This should be a beginner question anyway.
I was playing around with a simple "Counter" class, say inline in file
Counter.hpp:
#ifndef CLASS_COUNTER_HPP_
#define CLASS_COUNTER_HPP_
#include <mutex>
#include <string>
#include <exception>
class Counter
{
public:
explicit Counter(std::size_t v = 0) : value_{v} {}
std::size_t value() const noexcept { return value_; }
// void increment() { ++value_; } // not an atomic operation : ++value_ equals value_ = value_ + 1
// --> 3 operations: read, add, assign
void increment() noexcept
{
mutex_.lock();
++value_;
mutex_.unlock();
}
// void decrement() noexcept
// {
// mutex_.lock();
// --value_; // possible underflow
// mutex_.unlock();
// }
void decrement()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex>{mutex_};
if (value_ == 0)
{
std::string message{"New Value ("+std::to_string(value_-1)+") too low, must be at least 0"};
throw std::logic_error{message};
}
--value_;
}
private:
std::size_t value_;
std::mutex mutex_;
};
#endif
In main.cpp a Counter instance is supposed to be incremented and decremented
concurrently:
main.cpp:
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <array>
#include <thread>
#include <exception>
#include "Counter.hpp"
int
main ()
{
Counter counter{};
std::array<std::thread,4> threads;
auto operation = [&counter]()
{
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < 125; ++i)
counter.increment();
};
// std::for_each(begin(threads),end(threads),[&operation](auto& val) { val = std::thread{operation}; });
std::cout << "Incrementing Counter (" << std::setw(3) << counter.value() << ") concurrently...";
for (auto& t : threads)
{
t = std::thread{operation};
}
for (auto& t : threads)
t.join();
std::cout << " new value == " << counter.value() << '\n';
auto second_operation = [&counter]()
{
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < 125; ++i)
{
try
{
counter.decrement();
}
catch(const std::exception& e)
{
std::cerr << "\n***Exception while trying to decrement : " << e.what() << "***\n";
}
}
};
std::cout << "Decrementing Counter (" << std::setw(3) << counter.value() << ") concurrently...";
for (auto& t : threads)
t = std::thread{second_operation};
for (auto& t : threads)
t.join();
std::cout << " new value == " << counter.value() << '\n';
return 0;
The exception handling seems to work as it's supposed to, and the way I understand it std::lock_guard is supposed to guarantee unlocking a mutex once the lock_guard goes out of scope.
However it seems to be more complicated than that. While the incrementation correctly results in a final value of "500", the decrementation - which is supposed to result in "0" - doesn't work out. The result will be something between "0" and "16" or so.
If the timing is changed, for instance by using valgrind, it seems to work correctly every time.
I was able to pinpoint the problem to the use of std::lock_guard. If I define the decrement() function as this :
void decrement() noexcept
{
mutex_.lock();
--value_; // possible underflow
mutex_.unlock();
}
everything works out fine ( as long as there is no underflow).
But once I make a simple change to:
void decrement() noexcept
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex>{mutex_};
--value_; // possible underflow
}
the behavior is like I described above. I presume I did not really understand the behavior and use cases of std::lock_guard. I would really appreciate it if you could point me into the right direction!
The program compiles via clang++ -std=c++14 -stdlib=libc++ *.cpp -pthread.

Answer 1

std::lock_guard<std::mutex>{mutex_}; Does not create a local. It creates a temporary which is destroyed at the end of the statement. This means your value is not protected by the lock. The lock guard must be a local:
void decrement() noexcept
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard {mutex_};
--value_; // possible underflow
}

Answer 2

The problem is that the line
std::lock_guard<std::mutex>{mutex_};
does not create a variable, but rather creates a temporary lock_guard object which gets destroyed again immediately. What you probably meant to write was:
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard{mutex_};
This creates a variable of type lock_guard, named guard, which gets destroyed when it leaves the scope (i.e. at the end of the function. Essentially, you forgot to name your variable.