I'm trying to program a command line server that would receive information from a serial port, parse it, and record it in an internal object.
Then upon request from a client the server would return the requested information.
What I want to do is put the receiver & parser parts in a separated thread in order to have the server running along side, not interfering with the data collection.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
class exampleClass{
std::thread *processThread;
public void completeProcess(){
while(1){
processStep1();
if (verification()){processStep2()}
}
};
void processStep1(){...};
void processStep2(){...};
bool verification(){...};
void runThreaded();
} // End example class definition
// The idea being that this thread runs independently
// until I call the object's destructor
exampleClass::runThreaded(){
std::thread processThread(&exampleClass::completeProcess, this);
} // Unfortunately The program ends up crashing here with CIGARET
You are running a local thread inside a member function. You have to join it or detach it and, since it is local, you have to do this in the function itself:
exampleClass::runThreaded()
{
std::thread processThread(&exampleClass::completeProcess, this);
// more stuff
processThread.join();
} //
I am guessing what you really want is to launch a data member thread instead of launching a local one. If you do this, you still have to join it somewhere, for example in the destructor. In this case, your method should be
exampleClass::runThreaded()
{
processThread = std::thread(&exampleClass::completeProcess, this);
}
and the destructor
exampleClass::~exampleClass()
{
processThread.join();
}
and processThread should be an std::thread, not a pointer to one.
Just a note on design: if you are to have a runThreaded method acting on a thread data member, you have to be very careful about not calling it more than once before the thread is joined. It might make more sense to launch the thread in the constructor and join it in the destructor.
Thread object is on stack and it is going to be destructed on function end. Thread object destructor calls std::terminate if thread still running, as in your case. See here.
Related
class ThreadOne {
public:
ThreadOne();
void RealThread();
void EnqueueJob(s_info job);
std::queue<s_info> q_jobs;
private:
H5::H5File* targetFile = new H5::H5File("file.h5", H5F_ACC_TRUNC);
std::condition_variable cv_condition;
std::mutex m_job_q_;
};
ThreadOne::ThreadOne() {
}
void ThreadOne::RealThread() {
while (true) {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m_job_q_);
cv_condition.wait(lock, [this]() { return !this->q_jobs.empty(); });
s_info info = std::move(q_jobs.front());
q_jobs.pop();
lock.unlock();
//* DO THE JOB *//
}
}
void ThreadOne::EnqueueJob(s_info job) {
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(m_job_q_);
q_jobs.push(std::move(job));
}
cv_condition.notify_one();
}
ThreadOne *tWrite = new ThreadOne();
I want to make a thread and send it a pointer of an array and its name as a struct(s_info), and then make the thread write it into a file. I think that it's better than creating a thread whenever writing is needed.
I could make a thread pool and allocate jobs to it, but it's not allowed to write the same file concurrently in my situation, I think that just making a thread will be enough and the program will still do CPU-bound jobs when writing job is in process.
To sum up, this class (hopefully) gets array pointers and their dataset names, puts them in q_jobs and RealThread writes the arrays into a file.
I referred to a C++ thread pool program and the program initiates threads like this:
std::vector<std::thread> vec_worker_threads;
vector_worker_threads.reserve(num_threads_);
vector_worker_threads.emplace_back([this]() { this->RealThread(); });
I'm new to C++ and I understand what the code above does, but I don't know how to initiate RealThread in my class without a vector. How can I make an instance of the class that has a thread(RealThread) that's already ready inside it?
From what I can gather, and as already discussed in the comments, you simply want a std::thread member for ThreadOne:
class ThreadOne {
std::thread thread;
public:
~ThreadOne();
//...
};
//...
ThreadOne::ThreadOne() {
thread = std::thread{RealThread, this};
}
ThreadOne::~ThreadOne() {
// (potentially) notify thread to finish first
if(thread.joinable())
thread.join();
}
//...
ThreadOne tWrite;
Note that I did not start the thread in the member-initializer-list of the constructor in order to avoid the thread accessing other members that have not been initialized yet. (The default constructor of std::thread does not start any thread.)
I also wrote a destructor which will wait for the thread to finish and join it. You must always join threads before destroying the std::thread object attached to it, otherwise your program will call std::terminate and abort.
Finally, I replaced tWrite from being a pointer to being a class type directly. There is probably no reason for you to use dynamic allocation there and even if you have a need for it, you should be using
auto tWrite = std::make_unique<ThreadOne>();
or equivalent, instead, so that you are not going to rely on manually deleteing the pointer at the correct place.
Also note that your current RealThread function seems to never finish. It must return at some point, probably after receiving a notification from the main thread, otherwise thread.join() will wait forever.
I'm testing c++11 threads with this code, but when creating the thread, I'm having the error no matching function for call to 'std::thread::thread()'.
It's like if there was something wrong with the function I'm giving to std::thread ctr, but I don't see how it's wrong. It is incompleted, but it looks right to me:
Header:
#ifndef CONNECTION_H
#define CONNECTION_H
#include <thread>
#include <mysql++.h>
class Connection
{
public:
Connection(std::string mysqlUser, std::string mysqlPassword);
~Connection();
private:
std::string mysqlUser;
std::string mysqlPassword;
std::string mysqlIP;
int mysqlPort;
mysqlpp::Connection mysqlConnection;
std::thread connectionThread;
void threadLoop();
};
#endif // CONNECTION_H
Source:
#include "connection.h"
Connection::Connection(std::string mysqlUser, std::string mysqlPassword)
{
this->mysqlUser = mysqlUser;
this->mysqlPassword = mysqlPassword;
this->mysqlIP = "localhost"; //default
this->mysqlPort = 3306; //default
//Launch thread
std::thread connectionThread(threadLoop);
}
Connection::~Connection(){
mysqlConnection.disconnect();
}
void Connection::threadLoop(){
//Connect to mySQL database
mysqlConnection = new mysqlpp::Connection(false);
if(mysqlConnection.connect(NULL, mysqlIP.c_str(), mysqlUser.c_str(), mysqlPassword.c_str(), mysqlPort)){
std::string consulta = "SELECT * FROM 'Coordinates'";
mysqlpp::Query query = mysqlConnection.query(consulta);
mysqlpp::StoreQueryResult res = query.store();
query.reset();
}
while(true){
// Stuff
}
}
The problem is that threadLoop is a member function, but there is no object for it to be applied to. Just guessing:
std::thread connectionThread(&Connection::threadLoop, this);
But that's just the syntactic issue; there's a logic problem, too: that line creates a local object of type std::thread that goes away when the function returns. Its destructor will call std::terminate() because the thread has not been joined. Most likely, this was supposed to attach a thread to the connectionThread member. To do that:
std::thread thr(threadLoop, this);
std::swap(thr, connectionThread);
Your code has two problems:
You are providing incomplete information to the std::thread constructor
You are destroying the std::thread before it is joined with the main thread.
For the first problem, as Pete Becker suggests, you need to provide the object on which the function will be called, because the constructor for std::thread has no other way to know it. Assuming that you want to call function threadLoop() on the Connection object you are constructing, you can do this:
//Launch thread
std::thread connectionThread(threadLoop, this);
Internally, the constructor will call this->threadLoop() (where this is the Connection* parameter it received, not the std::thread itself, of course). And you will be fine.
The second problem is that your std::thread is destroyed immediately after starting, without having joined it to the main thread: this will call terminate(), which is not a good thing. Once again, Pete suggests a good alternative. Replace the above code with this:
// Launch thread
std::thread thr(threadLoop, this);
std::swap(thr, connectionThread);
The situation before this code is as follows:
You have a trivial std::thread object, connectionThread, which does not really represent a thread
After executing the first line of code:
You still have connectionThread
You also have a live thread represented by the std::thread object thr, which will be destroyed at the end of the Connection constructor, causing a call to terminate() because it is never joined to the main thread.
Fortunately, the second line of code comes to the rescue. After executing it:
You have a trivial std::thread, thr, which can be safely destroyed because it does not represent a real thread (so it is not joinable)
You have a live thread represented by connectionThread, an object that will not be destroyed as long as the Connection object exists.
Now, the problem is that you want to join connectionThread to the main thread before it is destroyed, but you also want to avoid blocking the main thread. The right time to do this join is the latest possible time: when connectionThread is about to be destroyed. And this happens at the destructor of Connection. So we'll add a line to this destructor, this way:
Connection::~Connection(){
mysqlConnection.disconnect();
connectionThread.join(); // Now connectionThread can be safely destroyed
}
Besides, this is the safest place to call join(), because it ensures that you will never destroy an unjoined connectionThread. This is RAII in action; if you are not familiar with the concept of RAII (or RIIA, as it is sometimes called), you can find a lot of information about this very important concept in the web, including this site.
All this put together: creating a Connection object will create a new thread; in this thread, a new database connection will be established and a query will be executed, while the main thread remains free for whatever other use (for instance, managing the GUI). When the Connection object is finally destroyed, the main thread will wait for the additional thread to finish (if necessary) and then normal execution will continue. I hope this is what you wanted to accomplish with your code.
As you may evince from cppreference, std::thread's constructor expect some form of function; you can pass it a free function, a static member function or one of these packed together with its arguments by means of std::bind. In order to execute a non-static member function you should use std::mem_fn to pass it together with the object it should be called on.
I'm trying to get a class run a thread, which will call a virtual member function named Tick() in a loop. Then I tried to derive a class and override the base::Tick().
but when execute, the program just call the base class's Tick instead of override one. any solutions?
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
using namespace std;
class Runnable {
public:
Runnable() : running_(ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(false)) {
}
~Runnable() {
if (running_)
thread_.join();
}
void Stop() {
if (std::atomic_exchange(&running_, false))
thread_.join();
}
void Start() {
if (!std::atomic_exchange(&running_, true)) {
thread_ = std::thread(&Runnable::Thread, this);
}
}
virtual void Tick() {
cout << "parent" << endl;
};
std::atomic<bool> running_;
private:
std::thread thread_;
static void Thread(Runnable *self) {
while(self->running_) {
self->Tick();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(100));
}
}
};
class Fn : public Runnable {
public:
void Tick() {
cout << "children" << endl;
}
};
int main (int argc, char const* argv[])
{
Fn fn;
fn.Start();
return 0;
}
outputs:
parent
You can't let an object run out of scope until you're finished using it! The return 0; at the end of main causes fn to go out of scope. So by the time you get around to calling tick, there's no guarantee the object even exists any more.
(The logic in ~Runnable is totally broken. Inside the destructor is way too late -- the object is already at least partially destroyed.)
The approach of using inheritance with the parent serving as control for the thread and the children implementing the functions is a bad idea in general. The common problems with this approach come from construction and destruction:
if the thread is started from the constructor in the parent (control) then it might start running before the constructor completes and the thread might call the virtual function before the complete object has been fully constructed
if the thread is stopped in the destructor of the parent, then by the time that the control joins the thread, the thread is executing a method on an object that does no longer exist.
In your particular case you are hitting the second case. The program starts executing, and in main the second thread is started. At that point there is a race between the main thread and the newly launched, if the new thread is faster (unlikely, as starting the thread is an expensive operation), it will call the member method Tick that will be dispatched to the final overrider Fn::Tick.
But if the main thread is faster it will exit the scope of main, and it will start destruction of the object, it will complete destruction of the Fn object and during construction of the Runnable it will join the thread. If the main thread is fast enough, it will make it to the join before the second thread and wait there for the second thread to call Tick on the now final overrider that is Runnable::Tick. Note that this is Undefined Behavior, and not guaranteed, since the second thread is accessing an object that is being destroyed.
Also, there are other possible orderings, like for example, the second thread could dispatch to Fn::Tick before the main thread starts destruction, but might not complete the function before the main thread destroys the Fn sub object, in which case your second thread would be calling a member function on a dead object.
You should rather follow the approach in the C++ standard: separate the control from the logic, fully construct the object that will be run and pass it to the thread during construction. Note that this is the case of Java's Runnable, which is recommended over extending the Thread class. Note that from a design point of view this separation makes sense: the thread object manages the execution, and the runnable is the code to execute.
A thread is not a ticker, but rather what controls the execution of the ticker. And in your code Runnable is not something that can be run, but rather something that runs other objects that happen to derive from it.
Maybe there is a really simple solution for my problem, but I'm really confused with all the boosts around me.
Here's my problem:
I want to start a task (calculation, file system operations, etc.), raised by a callback system which calls the CallbackReceived function and I want to pass this operation to a thread, typically represented by a member function of an object. The thread isn't guaranteed to finish, so it should have something to cancel it after some time.
Something like (don't know if this is 100% correct):
// ...
MyObject object;
// ...
void CallbackReceived(int parameter) {
boost::thread tThread(&MyObject::calculate, *&object);
boost::asio::deadline_timer tDeadlineTimer(_ioService, boost::posix_time::seconds(2));
tDeadlineTimer.async_wait(boost::bind(DeadlineTimeOut, boost::asio::placeholders::error));
tThread.join();
}
Basically, a tThread.join()` waits for the return of the thread. While waiting, my main could not receive any callbacks that may come in because it's blocked and sleeps.
So what can one do, to run the thread and not to block the calling initial program while executing the operation?
You can call join just when you need the result of the calculations.
Something like "Future" pattern. Anyway, you would have to make your thread variable global to the CallBackRecieved function (You can write some wrapper).
Note: you can call join, when thread finished its' work - nothing will be blocked.
What do you want to do with the result of calculate?
Your main thread is blocked in the .join().
If you want to handle other callbacks, you have to return to the normal execution flow, waiting for another call.
Then you have to ask yourself what do you do with the result of calculate when it's finished. Maybe the thread can put the result in a shared resource somewhere and finish gracefully.
You must first sort out all what your code is supposed to do ( processing callbacks, starting threads, what to do with the result ) then you can think of implementing it. There are new constructs in boost and C++11 called promise and future that could suit you but first you have to think about what you want.
Actually you could call the callback while your main thread is sleeping. It would just run on the context (stack) of your thread.
You probably don't want to call join at the point you are at but later or never.
Example (pseudocode):
class Worker {
void doWork(void * mainthread){
Main* main = static_cast<Main*>(mainthread);
while(hasWorkTodo){
//work
//inform main
main->callbackwithinformation(information);
}
}
class Main{
atomi_int filesfound;
void main_part(){
//start worker
boost::thread thread(&Worker::doWork, &object, this);
while(hasworktodo){
//do work
//use filesfound here
}
//About to finish make sure we join our thread
thread.join();
}
void callbackwithinformation(int updatedcount){
//here we set a flag or pass some object
//probably will need an atomic operation
filesfound = updatedcount;
}
}
You would define the implementations in cpp and the interface in a h file so no circular dependency would arise, since you are only using Main as a argument in the interface a forward declaration would suffice.
//worker.h
class mainthread;
class Worker {
void doWork(void * mainthread);
}
//worker.cpp
#include "main.h"
void Worker::doWork(/* and so on*/}
//main.h
class Main{
atomi_int filesfound;
void main_part();
void callbackwithinformation(int updatedcount);
}
//main.cpp
//no need for worker.h here
void Main::main_part() /* implementation and so on */
Here is a skeleton of my thread class:
class MyThread {
public:
virutal ~MyThread();
// will start thread with svc() as thread entry point
void start() = 0;
// derive class will specialize what the thread should do
virtual void svc() = 0;
};
Somewhere in code I create an instance of MyThread and later I want to destroy it.
In this case MyThread~MyThread() is called. MyThread:svc() is still running and using the object's data members. So I need a way politely inform MyThread:svc() to stop spinning, before proceeding with the destructor.
What is the acceptable way to destroy the thread object?
Note: I'm looking for platform agnostic solution.
UPD: It's clear that the root of problem is that there's no relationship between C++ object representing thread and OS thread. So the question is: in context of object destuction, is there an acceptable way to make thread object behave like an ordinary C++ object or should it be treated as an unusual one (e.g. should we call join() before destoying it?
Considering your additional requirements posted as comment to Checkers' reply (which is the
most straightforward way to do that):
I agree that join in DTor is problematic for various reasons. But from that the lifetime of your thread object is unrelated to the lifetime of the OS thread object.
First, you need to separate the data the thread uses from the thread object itself. They are distinct entities with distinct lifetime requirements.
One approach is to make the data refcounted, and have any thread that wants to access it hold a strong reference to the data. This way, no thread will suddenly grab into the void, but the data will be destroyed as soon as noone touches it anymore.
Second, about the thread object being destroyed when the thread joins:
I am not sure if this is a good idea. The thread object is normally a way to query the state of a thread - but with a thread object that dies as soon as the thread finishes, noone can tell you wether the thread finished.
Generally, I'd completely decouple the lifetime of the thread object from the lifetime of the OS thread: Destroying your thread object should not affect the thread itself. I see two basic approaches to this:
Thread Handle Object - reference counted again, returned by thread creator, can be released as early as one likes without affecting the OS thread. It would expose methods such as Join, IsFinished, and can give access to the thread shared data.
(If the thread object holds relevant execution state, the threafFunc itself could hold a reference to it, thereby ensuring the instance won't be released before the thread ends)
Thin Wrapper - You simply create a temporary around an OS thread handle. You could not hold additional state for the thread easily, but it might be just enough to make it work: At any place, you can turn an OS thread handle into an thread object. The majority of communication - e.g. telling the thread to terminate - would be via the shared data.
For your code example, this means: separate the start() from the svc()
You'd roughly work with this API (XxxxPtr could be e.g. boost::shared_ptr):
class Thread
{
public:
bool IsFinished();
void Join();
bool TryJoin(long timeout);
WorkerPtr GetWorker();
static ThreadPtr Start(WorkerPtr worker); // creates the thread
};
class Worker
{
private:
virtual void Svc() = 0;
friend class Thread; // so thread can run Svc()
}
Worker could contain a ThreadPtr itself, giving you a guarantee that the thread object exists during execution of Svc(). If multiple threads are allowed to work on the same data, this would have to be a thread list. Otherwise, Thread::Start would have to reject Workers that are already associated with a thread.
Motivation: What to do with rogue threads that block?
Assuming a thread fails to terminate within time for one reason or another, even though you told it to. You simply have three choices:
Deadlock, your applicaiton hangs. That usually happens if you join in the destructor.
Violently terminate the thread. That's potentially a violent termination of the app.
Let the thread run to completion on it's own data - you can notify the user, who can safely save & exit. Or you simply let the rogue thread dance on it's own copy of the data (not reference by the main thread anymore) until it completes.
Usually any OS-specific threads API will allow you to "join" a thread. That is, to block indefinitely on a thread handle until the thread functions returns.
So,
Signal the thread function to return (e.g. by setting a flag in its loop to false).
Join the thread, to make sure the actual thread terminates before you try to delete the thread object.
Then you can proceed with destruction of the thread object (you may also join in the destructor, though some people object to blocking destructors.).
I've had a project before with a similar "thread worker" class and a corresponding "work item" class (a-la Java's Thread and Runnable, except thread does not terminate but waits for a new Runnable object to be executed).
In the end, there was no difference if you join in a separate "shutdown" function or in the destructor, except a separate function is a bit more clear.
If you join in a destructor and a thread blocks, you will wait indefinitely.
If you join in a separate function and a thread blocks, you will wait indefinitely.
If you detach the thread and let it finish on its own, it will usually block application from exiting, so you will wait indefinitely.
So there is no straightforward way to make a thread behave like a regular C++ object and ignore its OS thread semantics, unless you can guarantee that your thread code can terminate almost immediately when notified to do so.
You could havee somthing like this in your svc method
while (alive){ //loops}
//free resources after while.
In your destructor, you could set the alive member to false. Or, you could have a pleaseDie() method, that sets the alive member to false, and can be called from the outside requesting the Thread instance to stop processing.
void
Thread::pleaseDie()
{
this->alive = false;
}
You first need a way to communicate with the thread to tell it to shut down. The best mechanism to do this depends on what svc() is doing. If, for example, it is looping on a message queue, you could insert a "please stop" message in that queue. Otherwise, you could simply add a member bool variable (and synchronize access to it) that is periodically checked by the svc(), and set by the thread wanting to destroy the object. Your could add a pure virtual stop() function to your base class, giving the implementor a clear signal that it has to implement svc() to make its class "runnable", and to implement stop() to make it "stoppable".
After asking the thread to stop, you must wait for it to exit before destroying the object. Again, there are several ways to do this. One is to make the stop() function blocking. It could wait, for example, for a "ok, I'm really stopped now" condition variable to be set by the thread running svc(). Alternatively, the caller could "wait" on the thread running svc(). The way to "wait" is platform dependent.
Most thread systems allow you to send a signal to a thead.
Example: pthreads
pthread_kill(pthread_t thread, int sig);
This will send a signall to a thread.
You can use this to kill the thread. Though this can leave a few of the resources hanging in an undefined state.
A solution to the resource problem is to install a signall handler.
So that when the signal handler is called it throws an exception. This will cause the thread stack to unwind to the entry point where you can then get the thread to check a variable about weather it is sill alive.
NOTE: You should never allow an exception to propogate out of a thread (this is so undefined my eyes bleed thinking about it). Basically catch the exception at the thread entry point then check some state variable to see if the thread should really exit.
Meanwhile the thread that sends the signal should wait for the thread to die by doing a join.
The only issues are that when you throw out of signal handler function you need to be careful. You should not use a signal that is asynchronus (ie one that could have been generated by a signal in another thread). A good one to use is SIGSEGV. If this happens normally then you have accessed invalid memory any you thread should think about exiting anyway!
You may also need to specify an extra flag on some systems to cope.
See This article
A working example using pthreads:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <iostream>
extern "C" void* startThread(void*);
extern "C" void shouldIexit(int sig);
class Thread
{
public:
Thread();
virtual ~Thread();
private:
friend void* startThread(void*);
void start();
virtual void run() = 0;
bool running;
pthread_t thread;
};
// I have seen a lot of implementations use a static class method to do this.
// DON'T. It is not portable. This is because the C++ ABI is not defined.
//
// It currently works on several compilers but will break if these compilers
// change the ABI they use. To gurantee this to work you should use a
// function that is declared as extern "C" this guarantees that the ABI is
// correct for the callback. (Note this is true for all C callback functions)
void* startThread(void* data)
{
Thread* thread = reinterpret_cast<Thread*>(data);
thread->start();
}
void shouldIexit(int sig)
{
// You should not use std::cout in signal handler.
// This is for Demo purposes only.
std::cout << "Signal" << std::endl;
signal(sig,shouldIexit);
// The default handler would kill the thread.
// But by returning you can continue your code where you left off.
// Or by throwing you can cause the stack to unwind (if the exception is caught).
// If you do not catch the exception it is implementation defined weather the
// stack is unwound.
throw int(3); // use int for simplicity in demo
}
Thread::Thread()
:running(true)
{
// Note starting the thread in the constructor means that the thread may
// start before the derived classes constructor finishes. This may potentially
// be a problem. It is started here to make the code succinct and the derived
// class used has no constructor so it does not matter.
if (pthread_create(&thread,NULL,startThread,this) != 0)
{
throw int(5); // use int for simplicity in demo.
}
}
Thread::~Thread()
{
void* ignore;
running = false;
pthread_kill(thread,SIGSEGV); // Tell thread it may want to exit.
pthread_join(thread,&ignore); // Wait for it to finish.
// Do NOT leave before thread has exited.
std::cout << "Thread Object Destroyed" << std::endl;
}
void Thread::start()
{
while(running)
{
try
{
this->run();
}
catch(...)
{}
}
std::cout << "Thread exiting" << std::endl;
}
class MyTestThread:public Thread
{
public:
virtual void run()
{
// Unless the signal causes an exception
// this loop will never exit.
while(true)
{
sleep(5);
}
}
};
struct Info
{
Info() {std::cout << "Info" << std::endl;}
~Info() {std::cout << "Done: The thread Should have exited before this" << std::endl;}
};
int main()
{
signal(SIGSEGV,shouldIexit);
Info info;
MyTestThread test;
sleep(4);
std::cout << "Exiting About to Exit" << std::endl;
}
> ./a.exe
Info
Exiting About to Exit
Signal
Thread exiting
Thread Object Destroyed
Done: The thread Should have exited before this
>
You should add dedicated thread management class (i.e. MyThreadMngr), that handles this and other tasks, like book keeping, owning the thread handles etc. The Thread itself should somehow signal to the thread manager that its going to terminate and MyThreadMngr should i.e. have a loop like Tom proposed.
There will probably be more actions that suite into such a thread manager class.
I reckon the easiest way to do this is to wrap the thread execution code in a loop
while(isRunning())
{
... thread implementation ...
}
You can also stop your thread by doing specific calls, for instance when you're using a WIN32 thread you can call TerminateThread on the thread handle in the destructor.
i give a simple and clean design, no signal, no sync, no kill needed.
per your MyThread, i suggest renaming and adding as below:
class MyThread {
public:
virutal ~MyThread();
// will be called when starting a thread,
// could do some initial operations
virtual bool OnStart() = 0;
// will be called when stopping a thread, say calling join().
virtual bool OnStop() = 0;
// derive class will specialize what the thread should do,
// say the thread loop such as
// while (bRunning) {
// do the job.
// }
virtual int OnRun() = 0;
};
the thread interface user will control the lifetime of MyThread.
and actually the real thread object is as below:
class IThread
{
public:
virtual API ~IThread() {}
/* The real destructor. */
virtual void Destroy(void) = 0;
/* Starts this thread, it will call MyThread::OnStart()
* and then call MyThread::OnRun() just after created
* the thread. */
virtual bool Start(void) = 0;
/* Stops a thread. will call MyThread::OnStop(). */
virtual void Stop(void) = 0;
/* If Wait() called, thread won't call MyThread::OnStop().
* If could, it returns the value of MyThread::OnRun()
* returned */
virtual int Wait(void) = 0;
/* your staff */
virtual MyThread * Command(void) = 0;
};
/* The interface to create a thread */
extern IThread * ThrdCreate(MyThread *p);
See the complete interfaces
http://effoaddon.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/devel/effo/codebase/addons/thrd/include/thrd_i.h
Coding Examples
Case 1. Controlled thread loop
class ThreadLoop : public MyThread
{
private:
bool m_bRunning;
public:
virtual bool OnStart() { m_bRunning = true; }
virtual bool OnStop() { m_bRunning = false; }
virtual int OnRun()
{
while (m_bRunning) {
do your job;
}
}
};
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
ThreadLoop oLoop;
IThread *pThread = ThrdCreate(&oLoop);
// Start the thread, it will call Loop::OnStart()
//and then call Loop::OnRun() internally.
pThread->Start();
do your things here. when it is time to stop the thread, call stop().
// Stop the thread, it will call Loop::OnStop(),
// so Loop::OnRun() will go to the end
pThread->Stop();
// done, destroy the thread
pThread->Destroy();
}
Case 2. Don't know when the thread will stop
class ThreadLoop : public MyThread
{
public:
virtual bool OnStart() { }
virtual bool OnStop() { }
virtual int OnRun()
{
do your job until finish.
}
};
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
ThreadLoop oLoop;
IThread *pThread = ThrdCreate(&oLoop);
// Start the thread, it will call Loop::OnStart()
//and then call Loop::OnRun() internally.
pThread->Start();
do your things here. Since you don't know when the job will
finish in the thread loop. call wait().
// Wait the thread, it doesn't call Loop::OnStop()
pThread->Wait();
// done, destroy the thread
pThread->Destroy();
}
A complete IThread implementation:
see
http://effoaddon.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/devel/effo/codebase/addons/thrd/src/thrd/thrd.cpp