I have to create an application where I'll have to make multiple threads. SoI thought to try making one function and passing it to different threads. Initially I've created two threads and have declared one function to be passed to both of them. All I am trying to do is to pass different integers to those threads and display it in the thread function,here is my code:
DWORD WINAPI Name(LPVOID lpParam)
{
int *Ptr=(int*)lpParam;
for(int j=0;j<2;j++)
{
cout<<"Thread"<<endl;
cout<<*Ptr<<endl;
}
return 0;
}
int main()
{
int a=10,b=15,c=25;
HANDLE thread1,thread2;
DWORD threadID,threadID2;
thread2= CreateThread(NULL,0,Name,LPVOID(a),0,&threadID2);
thread1= CreateThread(NULL,0,Name,LPVOID(b),0,&threadID);
for(int i=0;i<5;i++)
{
cout<<"Main Thread"<<endl;
}
if(thread1==NULL)
{
cout<<"Couldn't Create Thread:("<<endl;
exit(0);
}
if(thread2==NULL)
{
cout<<"Couldn't Create Thread:("<<endl;
exit(0);
}
return 0;
}
but this code is not running properly,i.e compliles fine,starts fine but afterwards gives a debugging error.
Could someone let let me know of my mistake and how I could correct it coz being able to utilize one function for multiple threads will be really helpful for me.
Wait for your child threads to return. Do this:
int main()
{
int a=10,b=15,c=25;
HANDLE thread[2];
DWORD threadID,threadID2;
thread[1]= CreateThread(NULL,0,Name,LPVOID(a),0,&threadID2);
thread[0]= CreateThread(NULL,0,Name,LPVOID(b),0,&threadID);
for(int i=0;i<5;i++)
{
cout<<"Main Thread"<<endl;
}
if(thread[0]==NULL)
{
cout<<"Couldn't Create Thread:("<<endl;
exit(0);
}
if(thread[1]==NULL)
{
cout<<"Couldn't Create Thread:("<<endl;
CloseHandle(thread[0]);
exit(0);
}
WaitForMultipleObjects(2, thread, TRUE, INFINITE);
CloseHandle(thread[0]);
CloseHandle(thread[1]);
return 0;
}
The handle of a thread is signaled when the thread is terminated (refer CreateThread).
You are passing the address of a local variable in the function into your thread. By the time the thread gets around to running your function has probably exited main already. So the thread will try to access a variable that no longer exists on the stack so will be reading some random value which when you try to dereference it as a pointer will likely crash.
You main needs to wait. For a simple test just put in a Sleep(10000) or something before it exits. Obviously that's no use for a real program.
To summarize the comments: There are two ways you can pass data. Either directly inside the void pointer, because "void pointer" is an integral type and thus can represent integers (but it doesn't necessarily have the same width as int), or indirectly by passing an actual address of the thing you care about.
Method 1 (pass the value):
DWORD WINAPI Name(LPVOID lpParam)
{
intptr_t n = reinterpret_cast<intptr_t>(lpParam);
// ...
}
int main()
{
intptr_t a = 10;
thread1 = CreateThread(NULL, 0, Name, reinterpret_cast<void *>(a), 0, &threadID);
// ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}
For this method, we use the integral type intptr_t, which has the same width as void *. We use reinterpret-casts to store and retrieve arbitrary integral values.
Method 2 (pass a pointer):
DWORD WINAPI Name(LPVOID lpParam)
{
T * p = static_cast<T *>(lpParam);
// ... use *p ...
}
int main()
{
T thing_I_care_about;
thread1 = CreateThread(NULL, 0, Name, &thing_I_care_about, 0, &threadID);
// ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
}
This is the more general method, but requires that thing_I_care_about remain alive, and it becomes a brittle shared state, so lifetime management and synchronisation become issues. Note that any object pointer is implicitly convertible to void *, so there's no need for the cast at the call site.
Finally, as others have commented, don't forget to join or detach your threads.
Related
These days I'm trying to learn more things about threads in windows. I thought about making this practical application:
Let's say there are several threads started when a button "Start" is pressed. Assume these threads are intensive (they keep running / have always something to work on).
This app would also have a "Stop" button. When this button is pressed all the threads should close in a nice way: free resources and abandon work and return the state they were before the "Start" button was pressed.
Another request of the app is that the functions runned by the threads shouldn't contain any instruction checking if the "Stop" button was pressed. The function running in the thread shouldn't care about the stop button.
Language: C++
OS: Windows
Problems:
WrapperFunc(function, param)
{
// what to write here ?
// if i write this:
function(param);
// i cannot stop the function from executing
}
How should I construct the wrapper function so that I can stop the thread properly?
( without using TerminateThread or some other functions )
What if the programmer allocates some memory dynamically? How can I free it before closing
the thread?( note that when I press "Stop button" the thread is still processing data)
I though about overloading the new operator or just imposing the usage of a predefined
function to be used when allocating memory dynamically. This, however, means
that the programmer who uses this api is constrained and it's not what I want.
Thank you
Edit: Skeleton to describe the functionality I'd like to achieve.
struct wrapper_data
{
void* (*function)(LPVOID);
LPVOID *params;
};
/*
this function should make sure that the threads stop properly
( free memory allocated dynamically etc )
*/
void* WrapperFunc(LPVOID *arg)
{
wrapper_data *data = (wrapper_data*) arg;
// what to write here ?
// if i write this:
data->function(data->params);
// i cannot stop the function from executing
delete data;
}
// will have exactly the same arguments as CreateThread
MyCreateThread(..., function, params, ...)
{
// this should create a thread that runs the wrapper function
wrapper_data *data = new wrapper_data;
data->function = function;
data->params = params;
CreateThread(..., WrapperFunc, (LPVOID) wrapper_data, ...);
}
thread_function(LPVOID *data)
{
while(1)
{
//do stuff
}
}
// as you can see I want it to be completely invisible
// to the programmer who uses this
MyCreateThread(..., thread_function, (LPVOID) params,...);
One solution is to have some kind of signal that tells the threads to stop working. Often this can be a global boolean variable that is normally false but when set to true it tells the threads to stop. As for the cleaning up, do it when the threads main loop is done before returning from the thread.
I.e. something like this:
volatile bool gStopThreads = false; // Defaults to false, threads should not stop
void thread_function()
{
while (!gStopThreads)
{
// Do some stuff
}
// All processing done, clean up after my self here
}
As for the cleaning up bit, if you keep the data inside a struct or a class, you can forcibly kill them from outside the threads and just either delete the instances if you allocated them dynamically or let the system handle it if created e.g. on the stack or as global objects. Of course, all data your thread allocates (including files, sockets etc.) must be placed in this structure or class.
A way of keeping the stopping functionality in the wrapper, is to have the actual main loop in the wrapper, together with the check for the stop-signal. Then in the main loop just call a doStuff-like function that does the actual processing. However, if it contains operations that might take time, you end up with the first problem again.
See my answer to this similar question:
How do I guarantee fast shutdown of my win32 app?
Basically, you can use QueueUserAPC to queue a proc which throws an exception. The exception should bubble all the way up to a 'catch' in your thread proc.
As long as any libraries you're using are reasonably exception-aware and use RAII, this works remarkably well. I haven't successfully got this working with boost::threads however, as it's doesn't put suspended threads into an alertable wait state, so QueueUserAPC can't wake them.
If you don't want the "programmer" of the function that the thread will execute deal with the "stop" event, make the thread execute a function of "you" that deals with the "stop" event and when that event isn't signaled executes the "programmer" function...
In other words the "while(!event)" will be in a function that calls the "job" function.
Code Sample.
typedef void (*JobFunction)(LPVOID params); // The prototype of the function to execute inside the thread
struct structFunctionParams
{
int iCounter;
structFunctionParams()
{
iCounter = 0;
}
};
struct structJobParams
{
bool bStop;
JobFunction pFunction;
LPVOID pFunctionParams;
structJobParams()
{
bStop = false;
pFunction = NULL;
pFunctionParams = NULL;
}
};
DWORD WINAPI ThreadProcessJob(IN LPVOID pParams)
{
structJobParams* pJobParams = (structJobParams*)pParams;
while(!pJobParams->bStop)
{
// Execute the "programmer" function
pJobParams->pFunction(pJobParams->pFunctionParams);
}
return 0;
}
void ThreadFunction(LPVOID pParams)
{
// Do Something....
((structFunctionParams*)pParams)->iCounter ++;
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
structFunctionParams stFunctionParams;
structJobParams stJobParams;
stJobParams.pFunction = &ThreadFunction;
stJobParams.pFunctionParams = &stFunctionParams;
DWORD dwIdThread = 0;
HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(
NULL,
0,
ThreadProcessJob,
(LPVOID) &stJobParams, 0, &dwIdThread);
if(hThread)
{
// Give it 5 seconds to work
Sleep(5000);
stJobParams.bStop = true; // Signal to Stop
WaitForSingleObject(hThread, INFINITE); // Wait to finish
CloseHandle(hThread);
}
}
How do you close a thread, when you done? like making sure nothing is open anymore or runing?
so far i know how to open it, but .. not how to close it right
int iret1;
pthread_t thread1;
char *message1;
void *multithreading1( void *ptr ) {
while (1) {
// Our function here
}
}
int main (int argc, char * const argv[]) {
if( (iret1=pthread_create( &thread1, NULL, multithreading1, (void*) message1)) )
{
printf("Thread creation failed: %d\n", iret1);
}
return 0;
}
"How do you close a thread, when you done?"
Either by just simple returning from that function or calling pthread_exit function.
Note that calling return also causes the stack to be unwound and variables declared within start routine to be destroyed, thus it's more preferable than pthread_exit function:
An implicit call to pthread_exit() is made when a thread other than the thread in
which main() was first invoked returns from the start routine that was used to
create it. The function's return value shall serve as the thread's exit status.
For more information also have a look at: return() versus pthread_exit() in pthread start functions
"making sure nothing is open anymore or runing"
Instead of making sure whether your thread is still running, you should wait for its termination by using pthread_join function.
Here's an example:
void *routine(void *ptr) {
int* arg = (int*) ptr; // in C, explicit type cast is redundant
printf("changing %d to 7\n", *arg);
*arg = 7;
return ptr;
}
int main(int argc, char * const argv[]) {
pthread_t thread1;
int arg = 3;
pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, routine, (void*) &arg);
int* retval;
pthread_join(thread1, (void**) &retval);
printf("thread1 returned %d\n", *retval);
return 0;
}
output
changing 3 to 7
thread1 returned 7
To do this, you either return from the thread function (multithreading1) or call pthread_exit().
For more information, see POSIX Threads Programming.
I'm using the method 'pthread_create' in my program, and get a segmentation fault INSIDE THIS METHOD.
What can possibly cause this? I'm calling this function with the correct arguments' types!
this is the code:
pthread_t* _daemon;
void* writer(void* arg){
// stuff that dont involve "arg"...
}
int initdevice(){
if(pthread_create(_daemon, NULL, &writer, NULL) != 0) //seg in this line
{
cerr << "system error\n";
return ERR_CODE;
}
return SUCCESS;
}
int main () {
initdevice();
return 0;
}
Note: I've tried to run it also without the '&' before the calling to writer in pthread_create, and also - we've tried sending to this method some void* argument instead of the last NULL argument.
Your probelem is here:
pthread_t* _daemon;
This should be:
pthread_t daemon;
Then change the call to pthread_create:
if(pthread_create(&daemon, NULL, &writer, NULL) != 0)
The idea is that pthread_create takes a pointer to an existing pthread_t object so that it can fill in the details. You can think of it as the C version of a constructor. Initially the pthread_t object is uninitialized this initializes it.
In addition your code is still probably not going to always work as you do not wait for the thread to finish. Make sure your main thread does not finish before all the children:
int main ()
{
initdevice();
pthread_join(daemon, NULL); // wait for the thread to exit first.
return 0;
}
you must allocate _daemon variable with new or malloc function, because you have use of a pointer. like bellow :
pthread_t* _daemon;
_daemon = new pthread_t;
I use C++ to implement a thread class. My code shows in the following.
I have a problem about how to access thread data.
In the class Thread, I create a thread use pthread_create() function. then it calls EntryPoint() function to start thread created. In the Run function, I want to access the mask variable, it always shows segment fault.
So, my question is whether the new created thread copy the data in original class? How to access the thread own data?
class Thread {
public:
int mask;
pthread_t thread;
Thread( int );
void start();
static void * EntryPoint (void *);
void Run();
};
Thread::Thread( int a) {
mask =a;
}
void Thread::Run() {
cout<<"thread begin to run" <<endl;
cout << mask <<endl; // it always show segmentfault here
}
void * Thread::EntryPoint(void * pthis) {
cout << "entry" <<endl;
Thread *pt = (Thread *) pthis;
pt->Run();
}
void Thread::start() {
pthread_create(&thread, NULL, EntryPoint, (void *)ThreadId );
pthread_join(thread, NULL);
}
int main() {
int input_array[8]={3,1,2,5,6,8,7,4};
Thread t1(1);
t1.start();
}
I'm not familiar with the libraries you're using, but how does EntryPoint know that pthis is a pointer to Thread? Thread (this) does not appear to be passed to pthread_create.
It's great that you're attempting to write a Thread class for educational purposes. However, if you're not, why reinvent the wheel?
pThis is most likely NULL, you should double check that you're passing the correct arguments to pthread_create.
Basically, the problem is as soon as you start your thread, main exits and your local Thread instance goes out of scope. So, because the lifetime of your thread object is controlled by another thread, you've already introduced a race condition.
Also, I'd consider joining a thread immediately after you've created it in Thread::start to be a little odd.
Let's have the following class definition:
CThread::CThread ()
{
this->hThread = NULL;
this->hThreadId = 0;
this->hMainThread = ::GetCurrentThread ();
this->hMainThreadId = ::GetCurrentThreadId ();
this->Timeout = 2000; //milliseconds
}
CThread::~CThread ()
{
//waiting for the thread to terminate
if (this->hThread) {
if (::WaitForSingleObject (this->hThread, this->Timeout) == WAIT_TIMEOUT)
::TerminateThread (this->hThread, 1);
::CloseHandle (this->hThread);
}
}
//*********************************************************
//working method
//*********************************************************
unsigned long CThread::Process (void* parameter)
{
//a mechanism for terminating thread should be implemented
//not allowing the method to be run from the main thread
if (::GetCurrentThreadId () == this->hMainThreadId)
return 0;
else {
m_pMyPointer = new MyClass(...);
// my class successfully works here in another thread
return 0;
}
}
//*********************************************************
//creates the thread
//*********************************************************
bool CThread::CreateThread ()
{
if (!this->IsCreated ()) {
param* this_param = new param;
this_param->pThread = this;
this->hThread = ::CreateThread (NULL, 0, (unsigned long (__stdcall *)(void *))this->runProcess, (void *)(this_param), 0, &this->hThreadId);
return this->hThread ? true : false;
}
return false;
}
//*********************************************************
//creates the thread
//*********************************************************
int CThread::runProcess (void* Param)
{
CThread* thread;
thread = (CThread*)((param*)Param)->pThread;
delete ((param*)Param);
return thread->Process (0);
}
MyClass* CThread::getMyPointer() {
return m_pMyPointer;
}
In the main program, we have the following:
void main(void) {
CThread thread;
thread.CreateThread();
MyClass* myPointer = thread.getMyPointer();
myPointer->someMethod(); // CRASH, BOOM, BANG!!!!
}
At the moment the myPointer is used ( in the main thread ) it crashes. I don't know how to get the pointer, which points to memory, allocated in another thread. Is this actually possible?
The memory space for your application is accessible to all threads. By default any variable is visible to any thread regardless of context (the only exception would be variables declared __delcspec(thread) )
You are getting a crash due to a race condition. The thread you just created hasn't started running yet at the point where you call getMyPointer. You need to add some kind of synchronization between the newly created thread and the originating thread. In other words, the originating thread has to wait until the new thread signals it that it has created the object.
I'm trying to get my head around what you are trying to do. It looks overly complicated for something like a thread-class. Would you mind post the class-definition as well?
Start by removing the C-style cast of the process-argument to CreateThread():
this->hThread = ::CreateThread (NULL, 0,&runProcess, (void *)(this_param), 0, &this->hThreadId);
If this doesn't compile you're doing something wrong! Never ever cast a function pointer! If the compiler complains you need to change your function, not try to cast away the errors! Really! You'll only make it worse for yourself! If you do it again they* will come to your home and do ... Let's see how you like that! Seriously, don't do it again.
Btw, in Process() I think it would be more appropriate to do something like:
assert(::GetCurrentThreadId() == hThreadId);
But if you declare it private it should only be accessible by your CThread-class anyway and therefor it shouldn't be a problem. Asserts are good though!
*It's not clear who they are but it's clear whatever they do it won't be pleasant!
As Rob Walker pointed out - I really missed the race condition. Also the crash is not when getting the pointer, but when using it.
A simple wait did the job:
MyClass* myPointer = thread.getMyPointer();
while (myPointer == 0)
{
::Sleep(1000);
}
myPointer->someMethod(); // Working :)