digitalmars.D - Indeterminate thread behavior?
- Georg Wrede (66/66) Dec 10 2004 I can run the following, usually once, and on the following
- Phill Thorpe (4/84) Dec 12 2004 I thought that there was nothing wrong with either printf statments,
- Ben Hinkle (8/74) Dec 12 2004 Try making sure all the threads are done before the end of your main
- Georg Wrede (5/14) Dec 12 2004 Thanks! That seems to correct the problem. I inserted
I can run the following, usually once, and on the following runs it (usually!) segfaults before finish. If I do something else and then run it, it again runs fine the first time only. I ran this on RedHat-9. Obviously, foo and bar don't yield, main only checks for t1, no threads are stopped, no errors are caught. Still, indeterminate behavior is not what I'd expect. Makes no difference whether I run it like $ ./ttest $ ./ttest > /tmp/ttest.lst $ ./ttest | tee /tmp/ttest.lst But running it with the same command again makes it segfault. (If you have a new computer you might have to increase the loop count, to maybe 50000, so that the first thread doesn't always finish before the second starts.) --------------------- Another thing: the Thread class is not well documented in the docs. Even trivial things like Arrays are meticulously explained with lots of examples, but Threads don't have a single example code there!! --------------------- Oh, and in case you haven't already tried the above, there's a typo in both printf statements. So change to in both places. Now, the really interesting part (this is slightly off-topic, but I couldn't help myself): with the above faulty printf statements, the code ran exactly the same!!!! So we have ESP inbuilt in D -- it understands what you meant to write! :-) Maybe I should file a bug report about checking the arguments to printf at compile time? At least for literal format strings.
Dec 10 2004
Phill Thorpe <phill pacific.net.au> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:08:19 +0000, Georg Wrede wrote:I can run the following, usually once, and on the following runs it (usually!) segfaults before finish. If I do something else and then run it, it again runs fine the first time only. I ran this on RedHat-9. Obviously, foo and bar don't yield, main only checks for t1, no threads are stopped, no errors are caught. Still, indeterminate behavior is not what I'd expect. Makes no difference whether I run it like $ ./ttest $ ./ttest > /tmp/ttest.lst $ ./ttest | tee /tmp/ttest.lst But running it with the same command again makes it segfault. (If you have a new computer you might have to increase the loop count, to maybe 50000, so that the first thread doesn't always finish before the second starts.) --------------------- Another thing: the Thread class is not well documented in the docs. Even trivial things like Arrays are meticulously explained with lots of examples, but Threads don't have a single example code there!! --------------------- Oh, and in case you haven't already tried the above, there's a typo in both printf statements. So change to in both places. Now, the really interesting part (this is slightly off-topic, but I couldn't help myself): with the above faulty printf statements, the code ran exactly the same!!!! So we have ESP inbuilt in D -- it understands what you meant to write! :-) Maybe I should file a bug report about checking the arguments to printf at compile time? At least for literal format strings.I thought that there was nothing wrong with either printf statments, except that the %d is a waste of time. Phill.
Dec 12 2004
"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cpc3jj$12m8$1 digitaldaemon.com...I can run the following, usually once, and on the following runs it (usually!) segfaults before finish. If I do something else and then run it, it again runs fine the first time only. I ran this on RedHat-9. Obviously, foo and bar don't yield, main only checks for t1, no threads are stopped, no errors are caught. Still, indeterminate behavior is not what I'd expect. Makes no difference whether I run it like $ ./ttest $ ./ttest > /tmp/ttest.lst $ ./ttest | tee /tmp/ttest.lst But running it with the same command again makes it segfault. (If you have a new computer you might have to increase the loop count, to maybe 50000, so that the first thread doesn't always finish before the second starts.) --------------------- Another thing: the Thread class is not well documented in the docs. Even trivial things like Arrays are meticulously explained with lots of examples, but Threads don't have a single example code there!! --------------------- Oh, and in case you haven't already tried the above, there's a typo in both printf statements. So change to in both places. Now, the really interesting part (this is slightly off-topic, but I couldn't help myself): with the above faulty printf statements, the code ran exactly the same!!!! So we have ESP inbuilt in D -- it understands what you meant to write! :-) Maybe I should file a bug report about checking the arguments to printf at compile time? At least for literal format strings.Try making sure all the threads are done before the end of your main function. If some threads are still running it can cause seg-v's I believe. There are some pieces of D's threading behavior that I think should be tightened up - like how to treat threads that are still running after main exits. -Ben
Dec 12 2004
In article <cphhuc$206e$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says..."Georg Wrede" <Georg_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cpc3jj$12m8$1 digitaldaemon.com...Thanks! That seems to correct the problem. I inserted at the very end of main.I can run the following, usually once, and on the following runs it (usually!) segfaults before finish. If I do somethingTry making sure all the threads are done before the end of your main function. If some threads are still running it can cause seg-v's I believe. There are some pieces of D's threading behavior that I think should be tightened up - like how to treat threads that are still running after main exits.
Dec 12 2004