Just practicing my vs 2010 C++ in Windows Form Applications, I haven't done this for a very long time. I am trying to develop a simple applications where a user presses a button and then label1 begins to count everytime users presses that button1. Not sure why label1 is not incrementing by 1. Can someone tell what the problem is? Thanks in advance?
EDITED
I have found the solution and I have amended the code. I will try to close the thread and if I can't, because of I have low points, I will then try tomorrow.
namespace Counter
{
int counter = 0;
//some additional namespaces
private: System::Void button1_Click(System::Object^ sender, System::EventArgs^ e)
{
counter++;
label1->Text = counter.ToString();
}
The reason why this isn't working is twofold.
The way you've written this, you only set the label text once, after you finish your "loop" (*). So the text will only change once.
Even if you move the assignment inside the loop, you're keeping the main thread busy throughout the whole function. What you want is to spawn a second thread and invoke a delegate to change the label text, something like this (C# version):
void StartCounting()
{
var thread=new Thread(()=>
{
for(int i=0;i<10;++i)
label1.Invoke((MethodInvoker)()=>{label1.Text=i.ToString();});
}
}
(*) As a side note, your entire for loop is equivalent to absolutely nothing. j will never be less than i when i starts as 0.
Related
I try to create program that takes power readings about 10 times in one second and start a new thread every second/minute to update mysql database while the main program continues taking readings. But after I use pthread_create function runs once and then program seems to exit. It is my first time trying to do something with pthread and obviously I am doing something wrong. Please help because it seems smart to use new thread to update mysql, so it will not interrupt main program. I will add my code (bit that are important I think)
the function:
void *showreadout(float readout,int l, int s) {
printf("readout: %f loops: %i sec: %i\n",readout,l,s);
return NULL;
}
and stuff from main:
pthread_t thread;
int p = 0, startminute = currentminute(),startsec,u;
float secreadout;
while (startminute == currentminute()) {
startsec = currentsec();
u = 0;
secreadout = 0;
while (startsec == currentsec()) {
secreadout += doloop(pinnumber);
u++;
}
pthread_create(&thread, NULL, showreadout(secreadout/u,u, startsec), NULL);
p++;
}
The problem was that I was trying to send variables with pthread_create() to my function and it worked once but then things seemed to go "tits up" or rather the program just stopped.
I solved it by making global variable for the readout and updated it after end of each second before calling my function with pthread_create() and using global variable in my function. I dont know is it the right way to approach it but it seems to work.
Just trying to understand threads and race condition and how they affect the expected output. In the below code, i once had an output that began with
"2 Thread-1" then "1 Thread-0" .... How could such an output happen? What I understand is as follows:
Step1:Assuming Thread 0 started, it incremented counter to 1,
Step2: Before printing it, Thread 1 incremented it to 2 and printed it,
Step3: Thread 0 prints counter which should be 2 but is printing 1.
How could Thread 0 print counter as 1 when Thread 1 already incremented it to 2?
P.S: I know that synchronized key could deal with such race conditions, but I just want to have some concepts done before.
public class Counter {
static int count=0;
public void add(int value) {
count=count+value;
System.out.println(count+" "+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
public class CounterThread extends Thread {
Counter counter;
public CounterThread(Counter c) {
counter=c;
}
public void run() {
for(int i=0;i<5;i++) {
counter.add(1);
}
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Counter counter= new Counter();
Thread t1= new CounterThread(counter);
Thread t2= new CounterThread(counter);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
How could Thread 0 print counter as 1 when Thread 1 already incremented it to 2?
There's a lot more going on in these two lines than meets the eye:
count=count+value;
System.out.println(count+" "+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
First of all, the compiler doesn't know anything about threads. It's job is to emit code that will achieve the same end result when executed in a single thread. That is, when all is said and done, the count must be incremented, and the message must be printed.
The compiler has a lot of freedom to re-order operations, and to store values in temporary registers in order to ensure that the correct end result is achieved in the most efficient way possible. So, for example, the count in the expression count+" "+... will not necessarily cause the compiler to fetch the latest value of the global count variable. In fact it probably will not fetch from the global variable because it knows that the result of the + operation still is sitting in a CPU register. And, since it doesn't acknowledge that other threads could exist, then it knows that there's no way that the value in the register could be any different from what it stored into the global variable after doing the +.
Second of all, the hardware itself is allowed to stash values in temporary places and re-order operations for efficiency, and it too is allowed to assume that there are no other threads. So, even when the compiler emits code that says to actually fetch from or store to the global variable instead of to or from a register, the hardware does not necessarily store to or fetch from the actual address in memory.
Assuming your code example is Java code, then all of that changes when you make appropriate use of synchronized blocks. If you would add synchronized to the declaration of your add method for example:
public synchronized void add(int value) {
count=count+value;
System.out.println(count+" "+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
That forces the compiler to acknowledge the existence of other threads, and the compiler will emit instructions that force the hardware to acknowledge other threads as well.
By adding synchronized to the add method, you force the hardware to deliver the actual value of the global variable on entry to the method, your force it to actually write the global by the time the method returns, and you prevent more than one thread from being in the method at the same time.
=======================================================
QProgressBar* pbar = new QProgressBar(this);
pbar->setMinimum(0);
pbar->setMaximum(0);
pbar->show();
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
qDebug() << "=====flag1======";
}
pbar->close();
===========================================================
I want the ProgressBar show busy when qDebug() message, but there is no effect, the QProgressBar was blocked and close when the loop finished.
Does anyone know how to solve this problem? thank you!
Yes GUI Is Blocked, becose 10 000 it's a lot of time.
Use QThread http://doc.qt.io/qt-4.8/qthread.html .
void My_Thread::run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 1e4; i++) {
if (i % 100 == 0) {
emit UpdateProgressBar(i);
}
}
}
//In Your SLOT
void MainWindow::UpdateProgressbar(int value) {
ui->progressbar->setValue(value);
}
Main threads is locked by loop before UI appears and UI is updated right after loop ends.
If you want to see progress bar you can add QApplication::processEvents(); inside the loop. It's not the best solution but it will work.
To alow any widget to appear event loop has to be processed.
Since you have full control over main thread its event loop is not able to process events which will show and update QProgressBar.
One way to fix if, which is quick but crapy is add to your loop QApplication::processEvents(); which process evens of event loop.
Ofcaource you should also call bar->setValue(i);.
Proper way to do it is asynchronous programing which is using signals and slots. You didn't provide any details about your actual problem so can't provide good solution.
I have the thread where the worker object is running infinite cycle. Here I have the following code that I would like it to read coordinates from list and place QGraphicsEllipseItem on these coordinates. The list can be updated by another thread, so I protect it by mutex. But sometimes the size of list may grow up so I would like to create new QGraphicsEllipse items for it if needed.
int meter_to_pixel_ratio = 20;
int x_pixel, y_pixel;
int i;
forever {
visualizationDataMutex->lock();
while(ellipseList->count()<visualizationData->count())
{
qDebug() << "Creating new visual item...";
ellipseList->append(new QGraphicsEllipseItem(0.0, 0.0, 10.0, 10.0));
ellipseList->last()->setVisible(false);
visualizationScene->addItem(ellipseList->last());
}
for(i=0; i<visualizationData->count(); i++)
{
x_pixel = meter_to_pixel_ratio*visualizationData->at(i)->x();
y_pixel = meter_to_pixel_ratio*visualizationData->at(i)->y();
ellipseList->at(i)->setPos(x_pixel, y_pixel);
ellipseList->at(i)->setBrush(QBrush(*visualizationColor->at(i)));
if(!ellipseList->at(i)->isVisible()) ellipseList->at(i)->setVisible(true);
}
visualizationDataMutex->unlock();
// repaint scene
visualizationScene->update();
QThread::msleep(100);
}
The problem I have is, that when I try to run the program I´ll obtain a runtime error. Tried to qDebug() the ellipseList->count() and seems to have the exactly same number of elements as needed (as visualizationData->count()). When commented these three lines:
//ellipseList->at(i)->setPos(x_pixel, y_pixel);
//ellipseList->at(i)->setBrush(QBrush(*visualizationColor->at(i)));
//if(!ellipseList->at(i)->isVisible()) ellipseList->at(i)->setVisible(true);
program can run without crashing. I do not understand why is this happening since there is no other function working with QGraphicsView/QGraphicsScene. (QGraphicsView was added from Qt Designer environment into mainwindow).
1.
i posted the question(About thread-safety of weak_ptr) several days ago,and I have the other related question now.
If i do something like this,will introduce a race condition as g_w in above example ?(my platform is ms vs2013)
std::weak_ptr<int> g_w;
void f3()
{
std::shared_ptr<int>l_s3 = g_w.lock(); //2. here will read g_w
if (l_s3)
{
;/.....
}
}
void f4() //f4 run in main thread
{
std::shared_ptr<int> p_s = std::make_shared<int>(1);
g_w = p_s;
std::thread th(f3); // f3 run in the other thread
th.detach();
// 1. p_s destory will motify g_w (write g_w)
}
2.As i know std::shared_ptr/weak_ptr derived from std::tr1::shared_ptr/weak_ptr, and std::tr1::shared_ptr/weak_ptr derived from boost::shared_ptr/weak_ptr, are there any difference on the implement,especially, in the relief of thread-safe.
The completed construction of a std::thread synchronizes with the invocation of the specified function in the thread being created, i.e., everything that happens in f4 before the construction of std::thread th is guaranteed to be visible to the new thread when it starts executing f3. In particular the write to g_w in f4 (g_w = p_s;) will be visible to the new thread in f4.
The statement in your comment // 1. p_s destory will motify g_w (write g_w) is incorrect. Destruction of p_s does not access g_w in any way. In most implementations it does modify a common control block that's used to track all shared and weak references to the pointee. Any such modifications to objects internal to the standard library implementation are the library's problem to make threadsafe, not yours, per C++11 § 17.6.5.9/7 "Implementations may share their own internal objects between threads if the objects are not visible to users and are protected against data races."
Assuming no concurrent modifications to g_w somewhere else in the program, and no other threads executing f3, there is no data race in this program on g_w.
#Casey
Firstly, I complete my code.
int main()
{
f4();
getchar();
retrun 0;
}
And I find some code in my visual studio 2013.