SendMessage to window created by AllocateHWND cause deadlock - multithreading

In my Delphi project, I derive a thread class TMyThread, and follow the advice from forums to use AllocateHWnd to create a window handle. In TMyThread object, I call SendMessage to send message to the window handle.
When the messages sent are in small volume, then the application works well. However, when the messages are in large volume, the application will deadlock and lose responses. I think may be the message queue is full as in LogWndProc, there are only codes to process the message, but no codes to remove the messages from the queue, that may cause all the processed messages still exist in the queue and the queue becomes full. Is that correct?
The codes are attached below:
var
hLogWnd: HWND = 0;
procedure TForm1.FormCreate(Sender: TObject);
begin
hLogWnd := AllocateHWnd(LogWndProc);
end;
procedure TForm1.FormDestroy(Sender: TObject);
begin
if hLogWnd <> 0 then
DeallocateHWnd(hLogWnd);
end;
procedure TForm1.LogWndProc(var Message: TMessage);
var
S: PString;
begin
if Message.Msg = WM_UPDATEDATA then
begin
S := PString(msg.LParam);
try
List1.Items.Add(S^);
finally
Dispose(S);
end;
end else
Message.Result := DefWindowProc(hLogWnd, Message.Msg, Message.WParam,
Message.LParam);
end;
procedure TMyThread.SendLog(I: Integer);
var
Log: PString;
begin
New(Log);
Log^ := 'Log: current stag is ' + IntToStr(I);
SendMessage(hLogWnd, WM_UPDATEDATA, 0, LPARAM(Log));
Dispose(Log);
end;

You are disposing your allocated string twice. At best, you will get an exception in your worker thread after SendMessage() has exited, terminating your thread if you do not catch that exception. At worse, you might not get an exception, but you will trash memory, leaving your app in a bad state so all sorts of random things can happen. You need to dispose the allocated string only once.
You are not responsible for removing sent messages from the queue because SendMessage() does not put the message into the queue. However, it does require the receiving thread to pump its queue for new messages, even if there are no new messages in the queue, in order to dispatch sent messages that are crossing thread boundaries, like your message is. If SendMessage() is blocking then your main thread is not pumping the queue correctly in code you have not shown, such as if you have other code that has blocked the main message loop from running.
As for the code you did show, I would suggest the following change:
procedure TForm1.LogWndProc(var Message: TMessage);
begin
if Message.Msg = WM_UPDATEDATA then
List1.Items.Add(PString(Message.LParam)^)
else
Message.Result := DefWindowProc(hLogWnd, Message.Msg, Message.WParam, Message.LParam);
end;
procedure TMyThread.SendLog(I: Integer);
var
Log: String;
begin
Log := 'Log: current stag is ' + IntToStr(I);
SendMessage(hLogWnd, WM_UPDATEDATA, 0, LPARAM(#Log));
end;
You do not need to dynamically allocate the string if you use SendMessage(), since it blocks the calling thread until the message is processed, ensuring the string remains valid. If you were using PostMessage() instead, then you would need to dynamically allocate (and fix your erroneous use of Dispose()):
procedure TForm1.LogWndProc(var Message: TMessage);
var
S: PString;
begin
if Message.Msg = WM_UPDATEDATA then
begin
S := PString(msg.LParam);
try
List1.Items.Add(S^);
finally
Dispose(S);
end;
end else
Message.Result := DefWindowProc(hLogWnd, Message.Msg, Message.WParam, Message.LParam);
end;
procedure TMyThread.SendLog(I: Integer);
var
Log: PString;
begin
New(Log);
Log^ := 'Log: current stag is ' + IntToStr(I);
if not PostMessage(hLogWnd, WM_UPDATEDATA, 0, LPARAM(Log)) then
Dispose(Log);
end;

Related

Delphi: Kill threads when application quits?

Background: I need to perform checks whether a bunch of network drives or remote computers are available. Since each DirectoryExists() needs a lot of time until a potential timeout, I perform the checks in separate threads. It can happen, that an end-user closes the application while some of the checks are still running. Since DirectoryExists() blocks, I have no chance of using the classical while not Terminated approach.
procedure TMyThread.Execute;
begin
AExists := DirectoryExists(AFilepath);
end;
Question 1: Is it a problem that some threads are still running when the application quits? Will Windows simply tidy up after me and that's it? Inside the IDE I get notification of un-freed objects, but outside IDE it just appears to be peaceful.
Question 2: Is it possible to terminate such simple threads with TerminateThread or is this potentially harmful in THIS case?
Question 3: I usually take the results from the threads in OnTerminate() event and let the threads FreeOnTerminate afterwards. If I wanted to free them myself, when should I do it? Can I free a thread in its OnTerminate event or is this a tiny bit too early? How would a thread inform me that it is done if not with OnTerminate?
Is it a problem that some threads are still running when the application quits?
Possibly, yes. It depends on what your code does after DirectoryExists() exits. You might end up trying to access things that no longer exist.
Will Windows simply tidy up after me and that's it?
To ensure everything is cleaned up properly, you are responsible for terminating your own threads. When the main VCL thread is done running, it will call ExitProcess(), which will forcibly terminate any secondary threads that are still running, which will not allow them to clean up after themselves, or notify any loaded DLLs that they are being detached from the threads.
Is it possible to terminate such simple threads with TerminateThread or is this potentially harmful in THIS case?
TerminateThread() is ALWAYS potentially harmful. NEVER use it.
I usually take the results from the Threads in OnTerminate() event and let the threads FreeOnTerminate afterwards.
That will not work if the main message loop has exited before the thread terminates. By default, the TThread.OnTerminate event is fired via a call to TThread.Synchronize(). Once the main message loop stops running, there won't be anything to process the pending Synchronize() requests, unless you run your own loop at app exit to call the RTL's CheckSynchronize() procedure until all of your threads have fully terminated.
if I wanted to free them myself, when should I do it?
Before your app wants to exit.
Can I free a thread in its OnTerminate event
No.
or is this a tiny bit too early?
That, and because it is always unsafe to free an object inside an event fired by that same object. The RTL still needs access to the object after the event handler exits.
That being said, since you don't have a clean way to terminate the threads safely, I suggest NOT allowing your app to exit when there are threads still running. When the user requests the app to exit, check if there are threads running, and if so then display a busy UI to the user, wait for all of the threads to terminate, and then exit the app.
For example:
constructor TMyThread.Create(...);
begin
inherited Create(False);
FreeOnTerminate := True;
...
end;
procedure TMyThread.Execute;
begin
...
if Terminated then Exit;
AExists := DirectoryExists(AFilepath);
if Terminated then Exit;
...
end;
type
TMainForm = class(TForm)
...
procedure FormClose(Sender: TObject; var Action: TCloseAction);
...
private
ThreadsRunning: Integer;
procedure StartAThread;
procedure ThreadTerminated(Sender: TObject);
...
end;
...
procedure TMainForm.FormClose(Sender: TObject; var Action: TCloseAction);
begin
if ThreadsRunning = 0 then Exit;
// signal threads to terminate themselves...
if CheckWin32Version(6) then
ShutdownBlockReasonCreate(Handle, 'Waiting for Threads to Terminate');
try
// display busy UI to user ...
repeat
case MsgWaitForMultipleObjects(1, System.Classes.SyncEvent, False, INFINITE, QS_ALLINPUT) of
WAIT_OBJECT_0 : CheckSynchronize;
WAIT_OBJECT_0+1 : Application.ProcessMessages;
WAIT_FAILED : RaiseLastOSError;
end;
until ThreadsRunning = 0;
// hide busy UI ...
finally
if CheckWin32Version(6) then
ShutdownBlockReasonDestroy(Handle);
end;
end;
procedure TMainForm.StartAThread;
var
Thread: TMyThread;
begin
Thread := TMyThread.Create(...);
Thread.OnTerminate := ThreadTerminated;
Thread.Start;
Inc(ThreadsRunning);
end;
procedure TMainForm.ThreadTerminated(Sender: TObject);
begin
Dec(ThreadsRunning);
...
end;
Alternatively:
type
TMainForm = class(TForm)
...
procedure FormCloseQuery(Sender: TObject; var CanClose: Boolean);
...
private
ThreadsRunning: Integer;
WaitingForClose: Boolean;
procedure StartAThread;
procedure ThreadTerminated(Sender: TObject);
...
end;
...
procedure TMainForm.FormCloseQuery(Sender: TObject; var CanClose: Boolean);
begin
CanClose := (ThreadsRunning = 0);
if CanClose or WaitingForClose then Exit;
// signal threads to terminate themselves...
WaitingForClose := True;
// display busy UI to user ...
if CheckWin32Version(6) then
ShutdownBlockReasonCreate(Handle, 'Waiting for Threads to Terminate');
end;
procedure TMainForm.StartAThread;
var
Thread: TMyThread;
begin
Thread := TMyThread.Create(...);
Thread.OnTerminate := ThreadTerminated;
Thread.Start;
Inc(ThreadsRunning);
end;
procedure TMainForm.ThreadTerminated(Sender: TObject);
begin
Dec(ThreadsRunning);
...
if WaitingForClose and (ThreadsRunning = 0) then
begin
WaitingForClose := False;
// hide busy UI ...
if CheckWin32Version(6) then
ShutdownBlockReasonDestroy(Handle);
Close;
end;
end;
Is it a problem that some threads are still running when the application quits?
When taken literally, this question is a little bit malformed. That is because after ExitProcess is called, which is how a Delphi application is ended by default, no threads are running.
The answer to the question "is it a problem that some threads didn't have a chance to finish" depends on what these threads failed to complete. You would have to carefully analyze thread code, but generally speaking this might be prone to errors.
Will Windows simply tidy up after me and that's it? Inside the IDE I get notification of un-freed objects, but outside IDE it just appears
to be peaceful.
The OS will reclaim allocated memory when the process address space is destroyed, all object handles will be closed when the process handle table is destroyed, entry points of all loaded libraries will be called with DLL_PROCESS_DETACH. I can't find any documentation on this but I also presume pending IO requests would be called to cancel.
But all of this does not mean there won't be any problems. Things can get messy, for instance, involving interprocess communications or synchronization objects. Documentation for ExitProcess details one such example: if a thread vanishes before releasing a lock that one of the libraries tries to acquire while detaching, there's a deadlock. This blog post gives another specific example where the exiting process is forcibly terminated by the OS if a thread attempts to enter a critical section that is orphaned by another already terminated thread.
While it may make sense to let go of resource releasing at exit time, particularly if cleanup is taking a considerable amount of time, it is possible to get it wrong for a non-trivial application. A robust strategy is to clean up everything before ExitProcess is called. OTOH if you find yourself in a situation where ExitProcess is already called, such as the process is detaching from your dll because of termination, the nearly only safe thing to do is to leave everything behind and return - every other dll could have already been unloaded and every other thread terminated.
Is it possible to terminate such simple threads with TerminateThread or is this potentially harmful in THIS case?
TerminateThread is advised to be used only in most extreme cases but since the question has a bold "THIS" what the code really does should be examined. Looking at the RTL code we can see that the worst that can happen is leaving a file handle open which is accessed for reading only. THIS is not a problem at process termination time since the handle will be closed shortly.
I usually take the results from the threads in OnTerminate() event and let the threads FreeOnTerminate afterwards. If I wanted to free
them myself, when should I do it?
The only strict rule is after they are finished executing. The choice would probably be guided by the design of the application. What would be different is, you wouldn't be able to use FreeOnTerminate and you would keep references to your threads to be able to free them. In the test case I worked on for answering this question, the worker threads which are finished are freed when a timer fires, kind of like a garbage collector.
Can I free a thread in its OnTerminate event or is this a tiny bit too early?
Freeing an object in one of its own event handlers induces a risk of operating on freed instance memory. The documentation specifically warns against this for components but in general this is applicable to all classes.
Even if you'd want to disregard the warning, this is a deadlock. Although the handler is called after Execute returns, OnTerminate is still synchronized from the ThreadProc. If you attempt to free the thread in the handler, it will cause a wait from the main thread for the thread to finish - which is waiting for the main thread to return from OnTerminate, which is a deadlock.
How would a thread inform me that it is done if not with OnTerminate?
OnTerminate is fine for informing that a thread has done its job, although you can use other means like using synchronization objects or queuing a procedure or posting a message etc.. Also worth noting that it's possible to wait on a thread handle, which is what TThread.WaitFor does.
In my test program I tried to determine application termination time depending on various exit strategies. All test results are dependent on my testing environment.
Termination time is measured starting from when the OnClose handler of a VCL form is called and ending with just before ExitProcess is called by the RTL. Also, this method does not account for how long ExitProcess takes, which I presume would be different when there are dangling threads. But I didn't try to measure it anyway.
Worker threads query the existence of a directory on a non-existing host. This is the most I could come up on waiting time. Every query is on a new non-existing host, otherwise DirectoryExists returns immediately.
A timer starts and collects worker threads. Depending on the time the IO query takes (which is around 550ms) the timer interval effects the total count of threads at any given time. I tested on around 10 threads with a timer interval of 250ms.
Various debug outputs allow to follow the flow in the event log of the IDE.
My first test was to leave the worker threads behind - just quit the application. The time I measured was 30-65ms. Again, this could have caused ExitProcess itself to take longer.
Next, I tested terminating the threads with TerminateThread. This took 140-160ms. I believe this is actually closer to what the previous test would come up if the time ExitProcess takes could be accounted for. But I have no proof on that.
Next, I tested cancelling the IO request on running threads and then leaving them behind.This considerably decreased the amount of leaked memory, in fact completely eliminated in most of the runs. Although the cancellation request is asynchronous, nearly all of the threads return immediately and find the time to finish. Anyway, this took 160-190ms.
I should note here that the code in DirectoryExists is defective, at least in XE2. The first thing the function does is to call GetFileAttributes. An INVALID_FILE_ATTRIBUTES return denotes the function failed. This is how the RTL handles the fail:
function DirectoryExists(const Directory: string; FollowLink: Boolean = True): Boolean;
...
...
Result := False;
Code := GetFileAttributes(PChar(Directory));
if Code <> INVALID_FILE_ATTRIBUTES then
begin
...
end
else
begin
LastError := GetLastError;
Result := (LastError <> ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND) and
(LastError <> ERROR_PATH_NOT_FOUND) and
(LastError <> ERROR_INVALID_NAME) and
(LastError <> ERROR_BAD_NETPATH);
end;
end;
This code assumes that unless GetLastError returns one of the above error codes the directory exists. This reasoning is flawed. Indeed, when you cancel the IO request, GetLastError returns ERROR_OPERATION_ABORTED (995) as documented but DirectoryExists returns true whether the directory exists or not.
Waiting for the threads to finish without cancelling IO takes 330-530ms. This completely eliminates memory leaks.
Cancelling IO requests and then waiting for the threads to finish takes 170-200ms. Of course no memory leaks here either. Considering there are no significant timing difference in any of the options, this would be the one I choose.
Testing code I used is below:
unit Unit1;
interface
uses
Winapi.Windows, Winapi.Messages, System.SysUtils, System.Classes,
Vcl.Controls, Vcl.Forms, Vcl.ExtCtrls,
generics.collections;
type
TForm1 = class(TForm)
Timer1: TTimer;
procedure Timer1Timer(Sender: TObject);
procedure FormCreate(Sender: TObject);
procedure FormClose(Sender: TObject; var Action: TCloseAction);
procedure FormDestroy(Sender: TObject);
private
FThreads: TList<TThread>;
end;
var
Form1: TForm1;
implementation
uses
diagnostics;
{$R *.dfm}
type
TIOThread = class(TThread)
private
FTarget: string;
protected
constructor Create(Directory: string);
procedure Execute; override;
public
destructor Destroy; override;
end;
constructor TIOThread.Create(Directory: string);
begin
FTarget := Directory;
inherited Create;
end;
destructor TIOThread.Destroy;
begin
inherited;
OutputDebugString(PChar(Format('Thread %d destroyed', [ThreadID])));
end;
procedure TIOThread.Execute;
var
Watch: TStopwatch;
begin
OutputDebugString(PChar(Format('Thread Id: %d executing', [ThreadID])));
Watch := TStopwatch.StartNew;
ReturnValue := Ord(DirectoryExists(FTarget));
Watch.Stop;
OutputDebugString(PChar(Format('Thread Id: %d elapsed time: %dms, return: %d',
[ThreadID, Watch.Elapsed.Milliseconds, ReturnValue])));
end;
//-----------------------
procedure TForm1.FormCreate(Sender: TObject);
begin
FThreads := TList<TThread>.Create;
Timer1.Interval := 250;
Timer1.Enabled := True;
end;
procedure TForm1.FormDestroy(Sender: TObject);
begin
FThreads.Free;
end;
procedure TForm1.Timer1Timer(Sender: TObject);
var
ShareName: array [0..12] of Char;
i: Integer;
H: THandle;
begin
for i := FThreads.Count - 1 downto 0 do
if FThreads[i].Finished then begin
FThreads[i].Free;
FThreads.Delete(i);
end;
for i := Low(ShareName) to High(ShareName) do
ShareName[i] := Chr(65 + Random(26));
FThreads.Add(TIOThread.Create(Format('\\%s\share', [string(ShareName)])));
OutputDebugString(PChar(Format('Possible thread count: %d', [FThreads.Count])));
end;
var
ExitWatch: TStopwatch;
// not declared in XE2
function CancelSynchronousIo(hThread: THandle): Bool; stdcall; external kernel32;
procedure TForm1.FormClose(Sender: TObject; var Action: TCloseAction);
var
i: Integer;
Handles: TArray<THandle>;
IOPending: Bool;
Ret: DWORD;
begin
ExitWatch := TStopwatch.StartNew;
// Exit;
Timer1.Enabled := False;
{
for i := 0 to FThreads.Count - 1 do
TerminateThread(FThreads[i].Handle, 0);
Exit;
//}
if FThreads.Count > 0 then begin
SetLength(Handles, FThreads.Count);
for i := 0 to FThreads.Count - 1 do
Handles[i] := FThreads[i].Handle;
//{
OutputDebugString(PChar(Format('Cancelling at most %d threads', [Length(Handles)])));
for i := 0 to Length(Handles) - 1 do
if GetThreadIOPendingFlag(Handles[i], IOPending) and IOPending then
CancelSynchronousIo(Handles[i]);
//}
//{
Assert(FThreads.Count <= MAXIMUM_WAIT_OBJECTS);
OutputDebugString(PChar(Format('Will wait on %d threads', [FThreads.Count])));
Ret := WaitForMultipleObjects(Length(Handles), #Handles[0], True, INFINITE);
case Ret of
WAIT_OBJECT_0: OutputDebugString('wait success');
WAIT_FAILED: OutputDebugString(PChar(SysErrorMessage(GetLastError)));
end;
//}
for i := 0 to FThreads.Count - 1 do
FThreads[i].Free;
end;
end;
procedure Exiting;
begin
ExitWatch.Stop;
OutputDebugString(PChar(
Format('Total exit time:%d', [ExitWatch.Elapsed.Milliseconds])));
end;
initialization
ReportMemoryLeaksOnShutdown := True;
ExitProcessProc := Exiting;
end.

Indy TCP Server at 400+ connections

I am trying to handle a few thousand users through Indy TCP servers but i always saw very high memory consumption even with a few hundred users... i just wrote a bot to test out the performance of the server handling the data. I connected 300 bots to the test server and started sending packets through. The memory usage climbed to a few hundred MB in matter of minutes...
After going through codes i noticed that the main issue was with using sender queue for each thread so each thread can transmit its messages in its Execute function. If 300 users are sending packets to each other and writing data to each thread's queue then it cause the memory to overload... Here is what i am doing and can anyone suggest any better way to handle this?
When a client is sending message to another client this function is called and is supplied with the context of that thread/client/conneciton
Procedure TMainFrm.SendRoomBuffer(Packet: Pointer; Size: Integer; Context: TIdContext);
Var
LocalBuffer: Pointer;
Connected: Boolean;
Begin
If Size < 1 then
Exit;
Try
If Context <> Nil Then
Connected := TRoomContext(Context).Connection.Connected
Else
Connected := False;
Except
Connected := False;
End;
If Connected = True Then Begin
GetMem(LocalBuffer,Size);
CopyMemory(LocalBuffer,Packet,Size);
TRoomContext(Context).Queue.Add(LocalBuffer);
End;
End;
Iterates through all the users present in the room and send them the packet
Lst := Room.UsersList.LockList;
Try
For I := 0 To Lst.Count -1 Do Begin
Try
Username := TRoomUserInfo(Lst.Items[I]).UserName.Value;
If IncludingMe = False Then Begin
If LowerCase(Username) <> LowerCase(MyNick) Then
SendRoomBuffer(Packet, PacketSize, TRoomUserInfo(Lst.Items[I]).Context)
End Else
SendRoomBuffer(Packet, PacketSize, TRoomUserInfo(Lst.Items[I]).Context);
Finally
Username := '';
End;
End;
Finally
Room.UsersList.UnlockList;
Lst := Nil;
End;
This is where the actual sending is done, in the Execute of IdTCPServer
If Not TRoomContext(AContext).Queue.IsEmpty Then Begin
tmpQueue := TRoomContext(AContext).Queue.LockList;
Try
While tmpQueue.Count > 0 Do Begin
outBuffer := tmpQueue.items[0];
Try
outLen := PCommunicatorPacket(outBuffer).BufferSize;
SetLength(outBuf,outLen);
Try
CopyMemory(#outBuf[0],outBuffer,outLen);
Try
If Connected Then
AContext.Connection.IOHandler.Write(outBuf)
Finally
tmpQueue.Delete(0);
End;
Finally
SetLength(outBuf,0);
outBuf := Nil;
End;
Finally
If outBuffer <> Nil Then Begin
FreeMem(outBuffer);
outBuffer := Nil;
End;
End;
End;
Finally
TRoomContext(AContext).Queue.UnlockList;
tmpQueue := Nil;
End;
End;
Complete OnExecute Function
Procedure TMainFrm.RoomSckExecute(AContext: TIdContext);
Var Buf: TIdBytes;
Len: Integer;
outBuffer: PIdBytes;
tmpQueue: TList;
Begin
AContext.Connection.IOHandler.CheckForDataOnSource(10);
if not AContext.Connection.IOHandler.InputBufferIsEmpty then
begin
Len := AContext.Connection.IOHandler.InputBuffer.Size;
AContext.Connection.IOHandler.ReadBytes(Buf, Len, False);
TRoomContext(AContext).ProcessPacket(#Buf[0], Len, AContext);
SetLength(Buf, 0);
Buf := nil;
end;
tmpQueue := TRoomContext(AContext).Queue.LockList;
try
while tmpQueue.Count > 0 do begin
outBuffer := PIdBytes(tmpQueue.Items[0]);
try
tmpQueue.Delete(0);
AContext.Connection.IOHandler.Write(outBuffer^);
finally
Dispose(outBuffer);
end;
end;
finally
TRoomContext(AContext).Queue.UnlockList;
end;
End;
If a single client is sending to 300 clients present in the room then 300 copies of the packets are made and are freed only when the actual sending is done...
If i do the writing directly to each connection and not by using queues then the memory consumption is not as rogue as this method but server hangs after a few minutes
Sorry if i forgot to mention any more details.
P.S: I am using Delphi 7
EDIT: I just check, if i dont actually write to socket, and go with the whole process as is, then the issue doesn't happen... so it means the time it takes to write to the socket, there are over a few hundred more packets read...
EDIT 2 I copied your code for the OnExecute, if i don't prove a length to ReadBytes then it takes some time about 3-5 seconds to process each command, so i am providing it with the length to read... And i used madexcept it doesnt show any leaks, i am gonna try with FastMM too now... but if there was actually a leak and something was causing it then why would commenting out the actual Write command in OnExecute suppress the memory usage?
EDIT 3 To explain my question further, i am actually reading the bytes from the stream and then process them myself later to make distinct packets from them, here is the code of what happens further after the data is read from the socket.
...
FPacketBuffer: Pointer; // global memory upto 65kb for each client to store the incoming data
PacketBufferPtr: Integer; // the offset upto where the data is read from the global memory
...
procedure TRoomContext.ProcessPacket(Buffer: Pointer; BufSize: Integer; Context: TIdContext);
begin
AddToPacketBuffer(Buffer,BufSize);
CheckAndProcessPacket(Context);
end;
procedure TRoomContext.AddToPacketBuffer(Buffer: Pointer; Size: Integer);
var
DestPtr: Pointer;
begin
if PacketBufferPtr + Size<65536 then
begin
DestPtr := Pointer(Cardinal(FPacketBuffer)+Cardinal(PacketBufferPtr));
Move(Buffer^,DestPtr^,Size);
PacketBufferPtr := PacketBufferPtr + Size;
end
else
begin
end;
end;
procedure TRoomContext.CheckAndProcessPacket(Context: TIdContext);
var DestPtr: Pointer;
NewPacketBufferLen: Integer;
SharedBuff: Pointer;
begin
if PCommunicatorPacket(FPacketBuffer).Signature = PACKET_SIGNATURE then
begin
while PCommunicatorPacket(FPacketBuffer).BufferSize <= PacketBufferPtr do
begin
GetMem(SharedBuff,PCommunicatorPacket(FPacketBuffer).BufferSize);
Try
CopyMemory(SharedBuff,FPacketBuffer,PCommunicatorPacket(FPacketBuffer).BufferSize);
MainFrm.ExecuteRoomPacket(SharedBuff, Context);
Finally
If SharedBuff <> Nil Then FreeMem(SharedBuff);
End;
NewPacketBufferLen := PacketBufferPtr - PCommunicatorPacket(FPacketBuffer).BufferSize;
DestPtr := Pointer(Cardinal(FPacketBuffer)+PCommunicatorPacket(FPacketBuffer).BufferSize);
Move(DestPtr^, FPacketBuffer^, NewPacketBufferLen);
PacketBufferPtr := NewPacketBufferLen;
end;
end
else
begin
DropInvalidPacket;
Inc(InvalidPackets);
If InvalidPackets > 50 Then
Context.Connection.Disconnect;
Exit;
end;
end;
Apologies for thinking it was because of the writing, the writing actually just slowed deletion from queue which made me think so, if i even put a sleep of 10 milliseconds, the memory consumption go rogue. About the leaks... one other reason i think this is not a leak is because if i stop the bots from messaging further, then the used memory gets back to where it was, but if i leave it running for a few minutes then it goes to a point where the application hangs or i receive an out of memory message. I think the issue is with making copies, i tried using a global queue for the room to handle messages and so multiple copies aren't made of the data, but that cause the application to hang after sometime maybe too much thread contention or i am not playing it safe.
TCP does not support broadcasting, and directly writing to TIdTCPServer connections from outside the server's events is generally not thread-safe (although it can be done if you are careful). In your situation, using queues is a good idea.
However, don't call Connected() in SendRoomBuffer(). It performs a read operation, which can interfere with any reading the OnExecute event handler performs, and can corrupt the InputBuffer's content by reading socket data out of order. If Context is not nil then queue the data regardless of the socket state, and catch any errors.
Also, in the OnDisconnect event, make sure you are freeing any queued packets that were not sent, otherwise you will leak them.
Lastly, your OnExecute code is making another copy of the queued data and then sending that copy (I am assuming that outBuf is a TIdBytes). Try to avoid that. I would suggest you change your queue to store TMemoryStream or TIdBytes objects instead of raw memory blocks, then you can pass the queued items directly to IOHandler.Write() without having to make copies of them first.
Try something like this:
type
PIdBytes = ^TIdBytes;
procedure TMainFrm.SendRoomBuffer(Packet: Pointer; Size: Integer; Context: TIdContext);
var
LocalBuffer: PIdBytes;
begin
if (Packet = nil) or (Size < 1) or (Content = nil) then
Exit;
New(LocalBuffer);
try
LocalBuffer^ := RawToBytes(Packet^, Size);
TRoomContext(Context).Queue.Add(LocalBuffer);
except
Dispose(LocalBuffer);
end;
end;
Lst := Room.UsersList.LockList;
try
for i := 0 To Lst.Count -1 do begin
Username := TRoomUserInfo(Lst.Items[i]).UserName.Value;
if (not IncludingMe) and TextIsSame(Username, MyNick) then begin
Continue;
end;
SendRoomBuffer(Packet, PacketSize, TRoomUserInfo(Lst.Items[i]).Context);
end;
finally
Room.UsersList.UnlockList;
end;
procedure TMainFrm.RoomSckDisconnect(AContext: TIdContext);
var
tmpQueue: TList;
i: Integer;
begin
...
tmpQueue := TRoomContext(AContext).Queue.LockList;
try
for i := 0 to tmpQueue.Count-1 do begin
Dispose(PIdBytes(tmpQueue.Items[i]));
end;
tmpQueue.Clear;
finally
TRoomContext(AContext).Queue.UnlockList;
end;
...
end;
procedure TMainFrm.RoomSckExecute(AContext: TIdContext);
var
Buf: TIdBytes;
outBuffer: PIdBytes;
tmpQueue: TList;
begin
AContext.Connection.IOHandler.CheckForDataOnSource(10);
if not AContext.Connection.IOHandler.InputBufferIsEmpty then
begin
AContext.Connection.IOHandler.ReadBytes(Buf, -1, False);
TRoomContext(AContext).ProcessPacket(#Buf[0], Len, AContext);
SetLength(Buf, 0);
Buf := nil;
end;
tmpQueue := TRoomContext(AContext).Queue.LockList;
try
while tmpQueue.Count > 0 do begin
outBuffer := PIdBytes(tmpQueue.Items[0]);
try
tmpQueue.Delete(0);
AContext.Connection.IOHandler.Write(outBuffer^);
finally
Dispose(outBuffer);
end;
end;
finally
TRoomContext(AContext).Queue.UnlockList;
end;
end;

How to use IdHTTPWork in secondary thread to update progressbar by summing downloaded data

I'm developing a multithread download application. I have one thread that creates many threads that download data. While downloading I need to see the progress in progress bar, so I set the maximum as the size of the file, and I calculate current downloaded data by using IdHTTPWork, which I added as a procedure of thread (secondary thread). When my app is started, the main thread creates other threads to download (in the loop for) and set the position of begin and end (idhttp.request.range), then each thread starts downloading like this:
HTTP.Request.Range := Format('%d-%d',[begin ,end]);
HTTP.Get(url,fs);
this is the procedure of secondarythread.work:
procedure TSecondaryThread.IdHTTPWork(ASender: TObject; AWorkMode: TWorkMode; AWorkCount: Int64);
begin
if AWorkMode = wmRead then
position:= AWorkCount;// position is a global variable
SendMessage(HWND_BROADCAST,MyMessage, 2,position);
end;
I don't know if this is the right code, but I can't find another solution. Each thread can increment position using the value of downloaded data, so position will contain the global downloads in instant S, I don't know if this is true.
Now my questions:
1- the progress doesn't correspond to the current amount of downloaded data; instead, it increments very slowly.
2-when I add -just when I add- Asend message in this procedure, it never stops working!!
So what is the problem?
You have the right idea by giving each worker thread its own TIdHTTP object and its own OnWork event handler. But you are not delivering those status updates to the main thread correctly.
Use PostMessage() instead of SendMessage() so that you do not slow down your worker threads.
You have multiple worker threads posting status updates to the main thread, so DO NOT use a global variable to hold the progress, and certainly DO NOT have the worker threads update that variable directly. Each worker thread should put its current status directly in the parameters of the message that gets posted to the main thread, and then the main thread can have a private counter variable that it increments with each status update.
DO NOT post the status updates using HWND_BROADCAST - that broadcasts the message to every top-level window in the system! Post the messages only to your main thread, by posting to an HWND that belongs to the main thread (I would suggest using AllocateHWnd() for that).
Try something like this:
unit StatusUpdates;
uses
Windows;
interface
type
PStatus = ^TStatus;
TStatus = record
BytesDownloadedThisTime: Int64;
BytesDownloadedSoFar: Int64;
MaxBytesBeingDownloaded: Int64;
end;
var
StatusUpdateWnd: HWND = 0;
implementation
end.
uses
..., StatusUpdates;
type
TMainForm = class(TForm)
...
private
TotalDownloaded: Int64;
...
end;
procedure TMainForm.FormCreate(Sender: TObject);
begin
StatusUpdateWnd := AllocateHWnd(StatusWndProc);
end;
procedure TMainForm.FormDestroy(Sender: TObject);
begin
if StatusUpdateWnd <> 0 then
begin
DeallocateHWnd(StatusUpdateWnd);
StatusUpdateWnd := 0;
end;
end;
procedure TMainForm.StartDownload;
begin
ProgressBar1.Position := 0;
ProgressBar1.Max := FileSizeToBeDownloaded;
TotalDownloaded := 0;
// create download threads...
end;
procedure TMainForm.StatusWndProc(var Message: TMessage);
var
Status: PStatus;
begin
if Message.Msg = MyMessage then
begin
Status := PStatus(Message.LParam);
try
if Status.BytesDownloadedThisTime > 0 then
begin
Inc(TotalDownloaded, Status.BytesDownloadedThisTime);
ProgressBar1.Position := TotalDownloaded;
end;
// use Status for other things as needed...
finally
Dispose(Status);
end;
end else
Message.Result := DefWindowProc(StatusUpdateWnd, Message.Msg, Message.WParam, Message.LParam);
end;
uses
..., StatusUpdates;
type
TSecondaryThread = class(TThread)
private
FTotalBytes: Int64;
FMaxBytes: Int64;
procedure PostStatus(BytesThisTime: Int64);
...
end;
procedure TSecondaryThread.PostStatus(BytesThisTime: Int64);
var
Status: PStatus;
begin
New(Status);
Status.BytesDownloadedThisTime := BytesThisTime;
Status.BytesDownloadedSoFar := FTotalBytes;
Status.MaxBytesBeingDownloaded := FMaxBytes;
if not PostMessage(StatusUpdateWnd, MyMessage, 2, LPARAM(Status)) then
Dispose(Status);
end;
procedure TSecondaryThread.IdHTTPWorkBegin(ASender: TObject; AWorkMode: TWorkMode; AWorkCountMax: Int64);
begin
if AWorkMode = wmRead then
begin
FTotalBytes := 0;
FMaxBytes := AWorkCountMax;
PostStatus(0);
end;
end;
procedure TSecondaryThread.IdHTTPWork(ASender: TObject; AWorkMode: TWorkMode; AWorkCount: Int64);
var
BytesThisTime: Int64;
begin
if AWorkMode = wmRead then
begin
BytesThisTime := AWorkCount - FTotalBytes;
FTotalBytes := AWorkCount;
PostStatus(BytesThisTime);
end;
end;

How to terminate anonymous threads in Delphi on application close?

I have a Delphi application which spawns 6 anonymous threads upon some TTimer.OnTimer event.
If I close the application from the X button in titlebar Access Violation at address $C0000005 is raised and FastMM reports leaked TAnonymousThread objects.
Which is the best way to free anonymous threads in Delphi created within OnTimer event with TThread.CreateAnonymousThread() method?
SOLUTION which worked for me:
Created a wrapper of the anonymous threads which terminates them upon being Free-ed.
type
TAnonumousThreadPool = class sealed(TObject)
strict private
FThreadList: TThreadList;
procedure TerminateRunningThreads;
procedure AnonumousThreadTerminate(Sender: TObject);
public
destructor Destroy; override; final;
procedure Start(const Procs: array of TProc);
end;
{ TAnonumousThreadPool }
procedure TAnonumousThreadPool.Start(const Procs: array of TProc);
var
T: TThread;
n: Integer;
begin
TerminateRunningThreads;
FThreadList := TThreadList.Create;
FThreadList.Duplicates := TDuplicates.dupError;
for n := Low(Procs) to High(Procs) do
begin
T := TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(Procs[n]);
TThread.NameThreadForDebugging(AnsiString('Test thread N:' + IntToStr(n) + ' TID:'), T.ThreadID);
T.OnTerminate := AnonumousThreadTerminate;
T.FreeOnTerminate := true;
FThreadList.LockList;
try
FThreadList.Add(T);
finally
FThreadList.UnlockList;
end;
T.Start;
end;
end;
procedure TAnonumousThreadPool.AnonumousThreadTerminate(Sender: TObject);
begin
FThreadList.LockList;
try
FThreadList.Remove((Sender as TThread));
finally
FThreadList.UnlockList;
end;
end;
procedure TAnonumousThreadPool.TerminateRunningThreads;
var
L: TList;
T: TThread;
begin
if not Assigned(FThreadList) then
Exit;
L := FThreadList.LockList;
try
while L.Count > 0 do
begin
T := TThread(L[0]);
T.OnTerminate := nil;
L.Remove(L[0]);
T.FreeOnTerminate := False;
T.Terminate;
T.Free;
end;
finally
FThreadList.UnlockList;
end;
FThreadList.Free;
end;
destructor TAnonumousThreadPool.Destroy;
begin
TerminateRunningThreads;
inherited;
end;
End here is how you can call it:
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
FAnonymousThreadPool.Start([ // array of procedures to execute
procedure{anonymous1}()
var
Http: THttpClient;
begin
Http := THttpClient.Create;
try
Http.CancelledCallback := function: Boolean
begin
Result := TThread.CurrentThread.CheckTerminated;
end;
Http.GetFile('http://mtgstudio.com/Screenshots/shot1.png', 'c:\1.jpg');
finally
Http.Free;
end;
end,
procedure{anonymous2}()
var
Http: THttpClient;
begin
Http := THttpClient.Create;
try
Http.CancelledCallback := function: Boolean
begin
Result := TThread.CurrentThread.CheckTerminated;
end;
Http.GetFile('http://mtgstudio.com/Screenshots/shot2.png', 'c:\2.jpg');
finally
Http.Free;
end;
end
]);
end;
No memory leaks, proper shutdown and easy to use.
If you want to maintain and exert control over a thread's lifetimes then it must have FreeOnTerminate set to False. Otherwise it is an error to refer to the thread after it has started executing. That's because once it starts executing, you've no ready way to know whether or not it has been freed.
The call to CreateAnonymousThread creates a thread with FreeOnTerminate set to True.
The thread is also marked as FreeOnTerminate, so you should not touch the returned instance after calling Start.
And so, but default, you are in no position to exert control over the thread's lifetime. However, you could set FreeOnTerminate to False immediately before calling Start. Like this:
MyThread := TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(MyProc);
MyThread.FreeOnTerminate := False;
MyThread.Start;
However, I'm not sure I would do that. The design of CreateAnonymousThread is that the thread is automatically freed upon termination. I think I personally would either follow the intended design, or derive my own TThread descendent.
To avoid errors using CreateAnonymousThread just set FreeOnTerminate to False before starting it.
This way you can work with the thread as you usually do without any workaround.
You can read the documentation that says that CreateAnonymousThread automatically sets FreeOnTerminate to True and this is what is causing the errors when you reference the thread.
Make your threads watch for some kind of notification from the outside. This could be an event that gets signaled, a message sent to a window owned by the thread, a command sent over a socket that your thread listens to, or whatever other form of communication you find.
If you determine that this problem is because your threads are so-called "anonymous" threads, then a simple workaround is for you to make them be non-anonymous threads. Put the body of the anonymous function into the Execute method, and pass any captured variables to the thread class via its constructor.

Raising Exception in TThread Execute?

I just realized that my exceptions are not being shown to the user in my threads!
At first I used this in my thread for raising the exception, which does not work:
except on E:Exception do
begin
raise Exception.Create('Error: ' + E.Message);
end;
The IDE shows me the exceptions, but my app does not!
I have looked around for a solution, this is what I found:
Delphi thread exception mechanism
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Languages/Pascal/Delphi/Q_22039681.html
And neither of these worked for me.
Here's my Thread unit:
unit uCheckForUpdateThread;
interface
uses
Windows, IdBaseComponent, IdComponent, IdTCPConnection, IdTCPClient,
IdHTTP, GlobalFuncs, Classes, HtmlExtractor, SysUtils, Forms;
type
TUpdaterThread = class(TThread)
private
FileGrabber : THtmlExtractor;
HTTP : TIdHttp;
AppMajor,
AppMinor,
AppRelease : Integer;
UpdateText : string;
VersionStr : string;
ExceptionText : string;
FException: Exception;
procedure DoHandleException;
procedure SyncUpdateLbl;
procedure SyncFinalize;
public
constructor Create;
protected
procedure HandleException; virtual;
procedure Execute; override;
end;
implementation
uses
uMain;
{ TUpdaterThread }
constructor TUpdaterThread.Create;
begin
inherited Create(False);
end;
procedure TUpdaterThread.Execute;
begin
inherited;
FreeOnTerminate := True;
if Terminated then
Exit;
FileGrabber := THtmlExtractor.Create;
HTTP := TIdHTTP.Create(nil);
try
try
FileGrabber.Grab('http://jeffijoe.com/xSky/Updates/CheckForUpdates.php');
except on E: Exception do
begin
UpdateText := 'Error while updating xSky!';
ExceptionText := 'Error: Cannot find remote file! Please restart xSky and try again! Also, make sure you are connected to the Internet, and that your Firewall is not blocking xSky!';
HandleException;
end;
end;
try
AppMajor := StrToInt(FileGrabber.ExtractValue('AppMajor[', ']'));
AppMinor := StrToInt(FileGrabber.ExtractValue('AppMinor[', ']'));
AppRelease := StrToInt(FileGrabber.ExtractValue('AppRelease[[', ']'));
except on E:Exception do
begin
HandleException;
end;
end;
if (APP_VER_MAJOR < AppMajor) or (APP_VER_MINOR < AppMinor) or (APP_VER_RELEASE < AppRelease) then
begin
VersionStr := Format('%d.%d.%d', [AppMajor, AppMinor, AppRelease]);
UpdateText := 'Downloading Version ' + VersionStr;
Synchronize(SyncUpdateLbl);
end;
finally
FileGrabber.Free;
HTTP.Free;
end;
Synchronize(SyncFinalize);
end;
procedure TUpdaterThread.SyncFinalize;
begin
DoTransition(frmMain.TransSearcher3, frmMain.gbLogin, True, 500);
end;
procedure TUpdaterThread.SyncUpdateLbl;
begin
frmMain.lblCheckingForUpdates.Caption := UpdateText;
end;
procedure TUpdaterThread.HandleException;
begin
FException := Exception(ExceptObject);
try
Synchronize(DoHandleException);
finally
FException := nil;
end;
end;
procedure TUpdaterThread.DoHandleException;
begin
Application.ShowException(FException);
end;
end.
If you need more info just let me know.
Again: The IDE catches all the exceptions, but my program does not show them.
EDIT: It was Cosmin's solution that worked in the end - and the reason it didn't at first, was because I didn't add the ErrMsg variable, instead I just placed whatever the variable would contain into the Synchronize, which would NOT work, however I have NO idea why. I realized it when I had no other ideas, and I just messed around with the solutions.
As always, the joke's on me. =P
Something very important you need to understand about multi-theraded development:
Each thread has its own call-stack, almost as if they're separate programs. This includes the main-thread of your program.
Threads can only interact with each other in specific ways:
They can operate on shared data or objects. This can lead to concurrency issues 'race conditions', and therefore you need to be able to help them 'share data nicely'. Which brings us to the next point.
They can "signal each other" using a variety of OS support routines. These include things like:
Mutexes
Critical Sections
Events
And finally you can send messages to other threads. Provided the thread has in some way been written to be a message receiver.
NB: Note that threads cannot strictly speaking call other threads directly. If for example Thread A tried to call Thread B directly, that would be a step on Thread A's call-stack!
This brings us to the topic of the question: "exceptions are not being raised in my threads"
The reason for this is that all an exception does is:
Record the error
And unwind the call-stack. <-- NB: Your TThread instance can't unwind the main thread's call-stack, and cannot arbitrarily interrupt the main threads execution.
So TThread will not automatically report exceptions to your main application.
You have to make the explicit decision as to how you wish to handle errors in threads, and implement accordingly.
Solution
The first step is the same as within a single threaded application. You need to decide what the error means and how the thread should react.
Should the thread continue processing?
Should the thread abort?
Should the error be logged/reported?
Does the error need a user decision? <-- This is by far the most difficult to implement, so we'll skip it for now.
Once this has been decided, implement the appropriate excpetion handler.
TIP: Make sure the exception doesn't escape the thread. The OS won't like you if it does.
If you need the main program (thread) to report the error to the user, you have a few options.
If the thread was written to return a result object, then it's easy: Make a change so that it can return the error in that object if something went wrong.
Send a message to the main thread to report the error. Note, the main thread already implements a message loop, so your application will report the error as soon as it processes that message.
EDIT: Code Sample for indicated requirement.
If all you want to do is notify the user, then Cosmind Prund's answer
should work perfectly for Delphi 2010. Older versions of Delphi need a little more work. The following is conceptually similar to Jeff's own answer, but without the mistakes:
procedure TUpdaterThread.ShowException;
begin
MessageDlg(FExceptionMessage, mtError, [mbOk], 0);
end;
procedure TUpdaterThread.Execute;
begin
try
raise Exception.Create('Test Exception');
//The code for your thread goes here
//
//
except
//Based on your requirement, the except block should be the outer-most block of your code
on E: Exception do
begin
FExceptionMessage := 'Exception: '+E.ClassName+'. '+E.Message;
Synchronize(ShowException);
end;
end;
end;
Some important corrections on Jeff's own answer, including the implementation shown within his question:
The call to Terminate is only relevant if your thread is implemented within a while not Terminated do ... loop. Take a look at what the Terminate method actually does.
The call to Exit is an unnecessary waste, but you probably did this because of your next mistake.
In your question, you're wrapping each step in its own try...except to handle the exception. This is an absolute no-no! By doing this you pretend that even though an exception occurred, everything is ok. Your thread tries the next step, but is actually guaranteed to fail! This is not the way to handle exceptions!
Here's my very, very short "take" on the issue. It only works on Delphi 2010+ (because that version introduced Anonymous methods). Unlike the more sophisticated methods already posted mine only shows the error message, nothing more, nothing less.
procedure TErrThread.Execute;
var ErrMsg: string;
begin
try
raise Exception.Create('Demonstration purposes exception');
except on E:Exception do
begin
ErrMsg := E.ClassName + ' with message ' + E.Message;
// The following could be all written on a single line to be more copy-paste friendly
Synchronize(
procedure
begin
ShowMessage(ErrMsg);
end
);
end;
end;
end;
Threads don't automatically propagate exceptions into other threads. So you must deal with it yourself.
Rafael has outlined one approach, but there are alternatives. The solution Rafael points to deals with the exception synchronously by marshalling it into the main thread.
In one of my own uses of threading, a thread pool, the threads catch and take over the ownership of the exceptions. This allows the controlling thread to handle them as it pleases.
The code looks like this.
procedure TMyThread.Execute;
begin
Try
DoStuff;
Except
on Exception do begin
FExceptAddr := ExceptAddr;
FException := AcquireExceptionObject;
//FBugReport := GetBugReportCallStackEtcFromMadExceptOrSimilar.
end;
End;
end;
If the controlling thread elects to raise the exception it can do so like this:
raise Thread.FException at Thread.FExceptAddr;
Sometimes you may have code that cannot call Synchronize, e.g. some DLLs and this approach is useful.
Note that if you don't raise the exception that was captured, then it needs to be destroyed otherwise you have a memory leak.
Well,
It is gonna be hard without your source code, but i have tested this:
How to handle exceptions in TThread objects
And it works fine. Perhaps you should take a look at it.
EDIT:
You are not following what the links you point out tell us to do. Check my link and you will see how to do that.
EDIT 2:
Try that and tell me if it worked:
TUpdaterThread= class(TThread)
private
FException: Exception;
procedure DoHandleException;
protected
procedure Execute; override;
procedure HandleException; virtual;
end;
procedure TUpdaterThread.Execute;
begin
inherited;
FreeOnTerminate := True;
if Terminated then
Exit;
FileGrabber := THtmlExtractor.Create;
HTTP := TIdHTTP.Create(Nil);
try
Try
FileGrabber.Grab('http://jeffijoe.com/xSky/Updates/CheckForUpdates.php');
Except
HandleException;
End;
Try
AppMajor := StrToInt(FileGrabber.ExtractValue('AppMajor[', ']'));
AppMinor := StrToInt(FileGrabber.ExtractValue('AppMinor[', ']'));
AppRelease := StrToInt(FileGrabber.ExtractValue('AppRelease[[', ']'));
Except
HandleException;
End;
if (APP_VER_MAJOR < AppMajor) or (APP_VER_MINOR < AppMinor) or (APP_VER_RELEASE < AppRelease) then begin
VersionStr := Format('%d.%d.%d', [AppMajor, AppMinor, AppRelease]);
UpdateText := 'Downloading Version ' + VersionStr;
Synchronize(SyncUpdateLbl);
end;
finally
FileGrabber.Free;
HTTP.Free;
end;
Synchronize(SyncFinalize);
end;
procedure TUpdaterThread.HandleException;
begin
FException := Exception(ExceptObject);
try
Synchronize(DoHandleException);
finally
FException := nil;
end;
end;
procedure TMyThread.DoHandleException;
begin
Application.ShowException(FException);
end;
EDIT 3:
You said you are no able to catch EIdHTTPProtocolException. But it works for me. Try this sample and see it for yourself:
procedure TUpdaterThread.Execute;
begin
Try
raise EIdHTTPProtocolException.Create('test');
Except
HandleException;
End;
end;
I've previously used SendMessge for inter thread communication using the TWMCopyData, so I think the following should work:
Const MyAppThreadError = WM_APP + 1;
constructor TUpdaterThread.Create(ErrorRecieverHandle: THandle);
begin
Inherited Create(False);
FErrorRecieverHandle := Application.Handle;
end;
procedure TUpdaterThread.Execute;
var
cds: TWMCopyData;
begin
try
DoStuff;
except on E:Exception do
begin
cds.dwData := 0;
cds.cbData := Length(E.message) * SizeOf(Char);
cds.lpData := Pointer(#E.message[1]);
SendMessage(FErrorRecieverHandle, MyAppThreadError, LPARAM(#cds), 0);
end;
end;
end;
I've only used it for sending simple data types or strings, but I'm sure it could be adapted send more information through as necessary.
You'll need add Self.Handle to the constructor in form created the thread and Handle the messsage in the form which created it
procedure HandleUpdateError(var Message:TMessage); message MyAppThreadError;
var
StringValue: string;
CopyData : TWMCopyData;
begin
CopyData := TWMCopyData(Msg);
SetLength(StringValue, CopyData.CopyDataStruct.cbData div SizeOf(Char));
Move(CopyData.CopyDataStruct.lpData^, StringValue[1], CopyData.CopyDataStruct.cbData);
Message.Result := 0;
ShowMessage(StringValue);
end;
Strange that everyone answered this question but failed to spot the obvious problem: given that exceptions raised in a background thread are asynchronous, and can occur at any time, this means that showing exceptions from a background thread would pop-up a dialog box at random times to the user, quite possibly showing an exception that has nothing to do with what the user is doing at the moment. I doubt that doing this could possibly enhance the user experience.

Resources