Search Results

Search found 10883 results on 436 pages for 'thread timeout'.

Page 30/436 | < Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >

  • Multi-threading does not work correctly using std::thread (C++ 11)

    - by user1364743
    I coded a small c++ program to try to understand how multi-threading works using std::thread. Here's the step of my program execution : Initialization of a 5x5 matrix of integers with a unique value '42' contained in the class 'Toto' (initialized in the main). I print the initialized 5x5 matrix. Declaration of std::vector of 5 threads. I attach all threads respectively with their task (threadTask method). Each thread will manipulate a std::vector<int> instance. I join all threads. I print the new state of my 5x5 matrix. Here's the output : 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 It should be : 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 Here's the code sample : #include <iostream> #include <vector> #include <thread> class Toto { public: /* ** Initialize a 5x5 matrix with the 42 value. */ void initData(void) { for (int y = 0; y < 5; y++) { std::vector<int> vec; for (int x = 0; x < 5; x++) { vec.push_back(42); } this->m_data.push_back(vec); } } /* ** Display the whole matrix. */ void printData(void) const { for (int y = 0; y < 5; y++) { for (int x = 0; x < 5; x++) { printf("%d ", this->m_data[y][x]); } printf("\n"); } printf("\n"); } /* ** Function attached to the thread (thread task). ** Replace the original '42' value by another one. */ void threadTask(std::vector<int> &list, int value) { for (int x = 0; x < 5; x++) { list[x] = value; } } /* ** Return the m_data instance propertie. */ std::vector<std::vector<int> > &getData(void) { return (this->m_data); } private: std::vector<std::vector<int> > m_data; }; int main(void) { Toto toto; toto.initData(); toto.printData(); //Display the original 5x5 matrix (first display). std::vector<std::thread> threadList(5); //Initialization of vector of 5 threads. for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { //Threads initializationss std::vector<int> vec = toto.getData()[i]; //Get each sub-vectors. threadList.at(i) = std::thread(&Toto::threadTask, toto, vec, i); //Each thread will be attached to a specific vector. } for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++) { threadList.at(j).join(); } toto.printData(); //Second display. getchar(); return (0); } However, in the method threadTask, if I print the variable list[x], the output is correct. I think I can't print the correct data in the main because the printData() call is in the main thread and the display in the threadTask function is correct because the method is executed in its own thread (not the main one). It's strange, it means that all threads created in a parent processes can't modified the data in this parent processes ? I think I forget something in my code. I'm really lost. Does anyone can help me, please ? Thank a lot in advance for your help.

    Read the article

  • Setting minimum threads in thread pool

    - by expert
    I have an application with 4 worker threads from the thread pool. It was waking up every 0.5 second. as written in msdn the thread pool monitors every 0,5 second to create idle threads. I set the nuber of minimum threads to 4 and it solved the problem - no more background activity all the time. My question is - I have another applicatiopn which has the same number of threads threads-4, but here setting min thread to 4 doesn't help but when setting min thread to 5 then the background monitoring stops. What might be the difference between 2 application with the same number of threads from the thread pool- 4 threads.On one setting min threads to 4 helps and the other only setting min threads to 5 helps?

    Read the article

  • Mercurial on IIS7 connection timeout.

    - by Ronnie
    I configured Mercurial on IIS 7 and I am able tu push and pull without problems some test files. If I try tu push a bigger repository I get for the hg push command line this error : abort: error: An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host From Tortoise HG I get some more detail: lopen error [Errno 10054] An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host Is seemed to me some kind of connection timeout for the CGI but I extended the cgi timeout properties in IIS7 configuration. What could be the problem?

    Read the article

  • Urgent : GPS timeout in android

    - by Farha Ansari
    Hi, In blackberry, we use a timeout to get the location, so that if it doesnt retun location in that much time period, we get to know. But in Android, there is no concept of timeout, can anyone please tell the alternative, that we can find out that after this much time there is no location update from GPS. Thanks

    Read the article

  • how to detect sql server timeout from .NET application without using catch Exception

    - by haditeo
    Hi, In my current application, i am performing an update by invoking T-SQL Update command. The problem is when the same record is locked by other users at that time. At .NET application, the application will wait until SQL Server timeout, then it will throw the SqlException timeout. Is it possible to perform a check first whether a particular record is locked by other process rather than catching the exception ? Thanks, hadi teo Update : The SQL Server version used are 2000 and 2008

    Read the article

  • ExecutorService that interrupts tasks after a timeout

    - by scompt.com
    I'm looking for an ExecutorService implementation that can be provided with a timeout. Tasks that are submitted to the ExecutorService are interrupted if they take longer than the timeout to run. Implementing such a beast isn't such a difficult task, but I'm wondering if anybody knows of an existing implementation.

    Read the article

  • Core Data managed object context thread synchronisation

    - by Ben Reeves
    I'm have an issue where i'm updating a many-to-many relationship in a background thread, which works fine in that threa, but when I send the object back to the main thread the changes do not show. If I close the app and reopen the data is saved fine and the changes show on the main thread. Also using [context lock] instead of a different managed object context works fine. I have tried NSManagedObjectContext: - (BOOL)save:(NSError **)error; - (void)refreshObject:(NSManagedObject *)object mergeChanges:(BOOL)flag; at different stages throughout the process but it doesn't seem to help. My core data code uses the following getter to ensure any operations are thread safe: - (NSManagedObjectContext *) managedObjectContext { NSThread * thisThread = [NSThread currentThread]; if (thisThread == [NSThread mainThread]) { //Main thread just return default context return managedObjectContext; } else { //Thread safe trickery NSManagedObjectContext * threadManagedObjectContext = [[thisThread threadDictionary] objectForKey:CONTEXT_KEY]; if (threadManagedObjectContext == nil) { threadManagedObjectContext = [[[NSManagedObjectContext alloc] init] autorelease]; [threadManagedObjectContext setPersistentStoreCoordinator: [self persistentStoreCoordinator]]; [[thisThread threadDictionary] setObject:threadManagedObjectContext forKey:CONTEXT_KEY]; } return threadManagedObjectContext; } } and when I pass object between threads i'm using -(NSManagedObject*)makeSafe:(NSManagedObject*)object { if ([object managedObjectContext] != [self managedObjectContext]) { NSError * error = nil; object = [[self managedObjectContext] existingObjectWithID:[object objectID] error:&error]; if (error) { NSLog(@"Error makeSafe: %@", error); } } return object; } Any help appreciated

    Read the article

  • WPF Background Thread Invocation

    - by jeffn825
    Maybe I'm mis-remembering how Winforms works or I'm overcomplicating the hell out of this, but here's my problem. I have a WPF client app application that talks to a server over WCF. The current user may "log out" of the WPF client, which closes all open screens, leaves only the navigation pane, and minimizes the program window. When the user re-maximizes the program window, they are prompted to log in. Simple. But sometimes things happen on background threads - like every 5 minutes the client tries to make a WCF calls that refreshes some cached data. And what if the user is logged out when this 5 minute timer triggers? Well, then the user should be prompted to log back in...and this must of course happen on the UI thread. private static ISecurityContext securityContext; public static ISecurityContext SecurityContext { get { if (securityContext == null) { // Login method shows a window and prompts the user to log in Application.Current.Dispatcher.Invoke((Action)Login); } return securityContext; } } So far so good, right? But what happens when multiple threads hit this spot of code? Well, my first intuition was that since I'm syncrhonizing across the Application.Current.Dispatcher, I should be fine, and whichever thread hit first would be responsible for showing the login form and getting the user logged in... Not the case... Thread 1 will hit the code and call ShowDialog on the login form Thread 2 will also hit the code and will call Login as soon as Thread 1 has called ShowDialog, since calling ShowDialog unblocked Thread 1 (I believe because of the way the WPF message pump works) All I want is a synchronized way of getting the user logged back into the application...what am I missing here? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Moving delegate-related function to a different thread

    - by Chris
    Hello everybody. We are developing a library in C# that communicates with the serial port. We have a function that is given to a delegate. The problem is that we want it to be run in a different thread. We tried creating a new thread (called DatafromBot) but keep using it as follows (first line): comPort.DataReceived += new SerialDataReceivedEventHandler(comPort_DataReceived); DatafromBot = new Thread(comPort_DataReceived); DatafromBot.Start(); comPort_DataReceived is defined as: Thread DatafromBot; public void comPort_DataReceived(object sender, SerialDataReceivedEventArgs e) { ... } The following errors occur: Error 3 The best overloaded method match for 'System.Threading.Thread.Thread(System.Threading.ThreadStart)' has some invalid arguments C:...\IR52cLow\CommunicationManager.cs 180 27 IR52cLow Error 4 Argument '1': cannot convert from 'method group' to 'System.Threading.ThreadStart' C:...\IR52cLow\CommunicationManager.cs 180 38 IR52cLow Any ideas of how we should convert this to get it to compile? Please note that comPort.DataReceived (pay attention to "." instead of "_") lies within a system library and cannot be modified. Thanks for your time! Chris

    Read the article

  • Is NSPasteboard thread-safe?

    - by Joe
    Is it safe to write data to an NSPasteboard object from a background thread? I can't seem to find a definitive answer anywhere. I think the assumption is that the data will be written to the pasteboard before the drag begins. Background: I have an application that is fetching data from Evernote. When the application first loads, it gets the meta data for each note, but not the note content. The note stubs are then listed in an outline view. When the user starts to drag a note, the notes are passed to the background thread that handles getting the note content from Evernote. Having the main thread block until the data is gotten results in a significant delay and a poor user experience, so I have the [outlineView:writeItems:toPasteboard:] function return YES while the background thread processes the data and invokes the main thread to write the data to the pasteboard object. If the note content gets transferred before the user drops the note somewhere, everything works perfectly. If the user drops the note somewhere before the data has been processed... well, everything blocks forever. Is it safe to just have the background thread write the data to the pasteboard?

    Read the article

  • Static variables and long running thread on IIS 7.5

    - by Dmitry
    Hello people. Help me solve next problem. I have ASP .NET MVC2 application. I run it on IIS 7.5. In one page user clicks button and handler for this button sends request to server (jquery.ajax). At server action in controller starts new thread (it makes long time import): var thread = new Thread(RefreshCitiesInDatabase); thread.Start(); State of import is available in static variable. New thread changes value of variable in the begin of work. User can check state of import too with the help of this variable, which is used in view. And user sees import's state. When I start this function few minutes everything is okey. On page I see right state of import, quantity of imported records is changed, I see changes in logs. But after few minutes begin troubles. When I refresh page with import state sometimes I see that import is okey but sometimes I see page with default values about import (like application is just started), but after that again I can see page with normal import's state. I tried to attach Visual Studio to IIS process and debug application. But when request comes to controller sometimes static variables have right values and sometimes they have default values (static int has 0, static string has "" etc.). Tell me what I do wrong. May be I must start additional thread in other way? Thanks in advance, Dmitry

    Read the article

  • How to know if all the Thread Pool's thread are already done with its tasks?

    - by mcxiand
    I have this application that will recurse all folders in a given directory and look for PDF. If a PDF file is found, the application will count its pages using ITextSharp. I did this by using a thread to recursively scan all the folders for pdf, then if then PDF is found, this will be queued to the thread pool. The code looks like this: //spawn a thread to handle the processing of pdf on each folder. var th = new Thread(() => { pdfDirectories = Directory.GetDirectories(pdfPath); processDir(pdfDirectories); }); th.Start(); private void processDir(string[] dirs) { foreach (var dir in dirs) { pdfFiles = Directory.GetFiles(dir, "*.pdf"); processFiles(pdfFiles); string[] newdir = Directory.GetDirectories(dir); processDir(newdir); } } private void processFiles(string[] files) { foreach (var pdf in files) { ThreadPoolHelper.QueueUserWorkItem( new { path = pdf }, (data) => { processPDF(data.path); } ); } } My problem is, how do i know that the thread pool's thread has finished processing all the queued items so i can tell the user that the application is done with its intended task?

    Read the article

  • c++ multithread

    - by chnet
    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(); }

    Read the article

  • c++ multithread

    - by chnet
    I use c++ to implement a thread class. The code is in the following. I initialize two objects, wish it will start two threads (I use pthread_self() to look the thread Id). But the result shows that there is only one thread beside the main thread. I am a bit confused... 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 <<" Thread Id is: "<< pthread_self() << endl; // the same thread Id. } 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); Thread t2(2); t1.start(); t2.start() }

    Read the article

  • Disposing ActiveX resources owned by another thread

    - by Stefan Teitge
    I've got a problem problem with threading and disposing resources. I've got a C# Windows Forms application which runs expensive operation in a thread. This thread instantiates an ActiveX control (AxControl). This control must be disposed as it uses a high amount of memory. So I implemented a Dispose() method and even a destructor. After the thread ends the destructor is called. This is sadly called by the UI thread. So invoking activexControl.Dispose(); fails with the message "COM object that has been separated from its underlying RCW", as the object belongs to another thread. How to do this correctly or is it just a bad design I use? (I stripped the code down to the minimum including removing any safety concerns.) class Program { [STAThread] static void Main() { // do stuff here, e.g. open a form new Thread(new ThreadStart(RunStuff); // do more stuff } private void RunStuff() { DoStuff stuff = new DoStuff(); stuff.PerformStuff(); } } class DoStuff : IDisposable { private AxControl activexControl; DoStuff() { activexControl = new AxControl(); activexControl.CreateControl(); // force instance } ~DoStuff() { Dispose(); } public void Dispose() { activexControl.Dispose(); } public void PerformStuff() { // invent perpetuum mobile here, takes time } }

    Read the article

  • Determine if the current thread has low I/O priority

    - by Magnus Hoff
    I have a background thread that does some I/O-intensive background type work. To please the other threads and processes running, I set the thread priority to "background mode" using SetThreadPriority, like this: SetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), THREAD_MODE_BACKGROUND_BEGIN); However, THREAD_MODE_BACKGROUND_BEGIN is only available in Windows Server 2008 or newer, as well as Windows Vista and newer, but the program needs to work well on Windows Server 2003 and XP as well. So the real code is more like this: if (!SetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), THREAD_MODE_BACKGROUND_BEGIN)) { SetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), THREAD_PRIORITY_LOWEST); } The problem with this is that on Windows XP it will totally disrupt the system by using too much I/O. I have a plan for a ugly and shameful way of mitigating this problem, but that depends on me being able to determine if the current thread has low I/O priority or not. Now, I know I can store which thread priority I ended up setting, but the control flow in the program is not really well suited for this. I would rather like to be able to test later whether or not the current thread has low I/O priority -- if it is in "background mode". GetThreadPriority does not seem to give me this information. Is there any way to determine if the current thread has low I/O priority?

    Read the article

  • Why do InterruptedExceptions clear a thread's interrupted status?

    - by Hanno Fietz
    If a thread is interrupted while inside Object.wait() or Thread.join(), it throws an InterruptedException, which resets the thread's interrupted status. I. e., if I have a loop like this inside a Runnable.run(): while (!this._workerThread.isInterrupted()) { // do something try { synchronized (this) { this.wait(this._waitPeriod); } } catch (InterruptedException e) { if (!this._isStopping()) { this._handleFault(e); } } } the thread will continue to run after calling interrupt(). This means I have to explicitly break out of the loop by checking for my own stop flag in the loop condition, rethrow the exception, or add a break. Now, this is not exactly a problem, since this behaviour is well documented and doesn't prevent me from doing anything the way I want. However, I don't seem to understand the concept behind it: Why is a thread not considered interrupted anymore once the exception has been thrown? A similar behaviour also occurs if you get the interrupted status with interrupted() instead of isInterrupted(), then, too, the thread will only appear interrupted once. Am I doing something unusual here? For example, is it more common to catch the InterruptedException outside the loop? (Even though I'm not exactly a beginner, I tagged this "beginner", because it seems like a very basic question to me, looking at it.)

    Read the article

  • how to call the method in thread with aruguments and return some value

    - by ratty
    i like to call the method in thread with aruguments and return some value here example class Program { static void Main() { Stopwatch stop = new Stopwatch(); stop.Start(); Thread FirstThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Fun1)); Thread SecondThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Fun2)); FirstThread.Start(); SecondThread.Start(); } public static void Fun1() { for (int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++) { Console.WriteLine("Fun1 writes:{0}", i); } } public static void Fun2() { for (int i = 1000; i >= 6; i--) { Console.WriteLine("Fun2 writes:{0}", i); } } } i know this above example run successfully but if method fun1 like this public int fun1(int i) { for (int n = i; n >= i+10; n++) { Console.WriteLine("Fun2 writes:{0}", i); } } then how can i call this in thread. Is it possible .Any body Help for me

    Read the article

  • Call event from original thread ??

    - by user311883
    Hi all, Here is my problem, I have a class which have a object who throw an event and in this event I throw a custom event from my class. But unfortunately the original object throw the event from another thread and so my event is also throw on another thread. This cause a exception when my custom event try to access from controls. Here is a code sample to better understand : class MyClass { // Original object private OriginalObject myObject; // My event public delegate void StatsUpdatedDelegate(object sender, StatsArgs args); public event StatsUpdatedDelegate StatsUpdated; public MyClass() { // Original object event myObject.AnEvent += new EventHandler(myObject_AnEvent); } // This event is called on another thread private void myObject_AnEvent(object sender, EventArgs e) { // Throw my custom event here StatsArgs args = new StatsArgs(..........); StatsUpdated(this, args); } } So when on my windows form I call try to update a control from the event StatsUpdated I get a cross thread exception cause it has been called on another thread. What I want to do is throw my custom event on the original class thread, so control can be used within it. Anyone can help me ?

    Read the article

  • The cross-thread usage of "HttpContext.Current" property and related things

    - by smwikipedia
    I read from < Essential ASP.NET with Examples in C# the following statement: Another useful property to know about is the static Current property of the HttpContext class. This property always points to the current instance of the HttpContext class for the request being serviced. This can be convenient if you are writing helper classes that will be used from pages or other pipeline classes and may need to access the context for whatever reason. By using the static Current property to retrieve the context, you can avoid passing a reference to it to helper classes. For example, the class shown in Listing 4-1 uses the Current property of the context to access the QueryString and print something to the current response buffer. Note that for this static property to be correctly initialized, the caller must be executing on the original request thread, so if you have spawned additional threads to perform work during a request, you must take care to provide access to the context class yourself. I am wondering about the root cause of the bold part, and one thing leads to another, here is my thoughts: We know that a process can have multiple threads. Each of these threads have their own stacks, respectively. These threads also have access to a shared memory area, the heap. The stack then, as I understand it, is kind of where all the context for that thread is stored. For a thread to access something in the heap it must use a pointer, and the pointer is stored on its stack. So when we make some cross-thread calls, we must make sure that all the necessary context info is passed from the caller thread's stack to the callee thread's stack. But I am not quite sure if I made any mistake. Any comments will be deeply appreciated. Thanks. ADD Here the stack is limited to user stack.

    Read the article

  • Why are my thread being terminated ?

    - by Sephy
    Hi, I'm trying to repeat calls to methods through 3 differents threads. But after I start my threads, during the next iteration of my loop, they are all terminated so nothing is executed... The code is as follows : public static void main(String[] args) { main = new Main(); pollingThread.start(); } static Thread pollingThread = new Thread() { @Override public void run() { while (isRunning) { main.poll(); // test the state of the threads try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } }; }; public void poll() { if (clientThread == null) { clientThread = new Thread(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { //create some objects } }); clientThread.start(); } else if (clientThread.isAlive()) { // do some treatment } if (gestionnaireThread == null) { gestionnaireThread = new Thread(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { //create some objects }; }); gestionnaireThread.start(); } else if (gestionnaireThread.isAlive()) { // do some treatment } if (marchandThread == null) { marchandThread = new Thread(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { // create some objects }; }); marchandThread.start(); } else if (marchandThread.isAlive()) { // do some treatment } } And for some reason, when I test the state of my different threads, they appear as runnable and then a the 2nd iteration, they are all terminated... What am I doing wrong? I actually have no error, but the threads are terminated and so my loop keeps looping and telling me the threads are terminated.... Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >