Can anyone tell me how to simulate and produce the bad_alloc exception in C++? In my code in some places i am using new operator which will throw the bad_alloc exception. I want to simulate this scenario and need to test the code.
Balamurugan,
I had the same doubt this afternoon, and did not see anything related here.
So I went to CPlusPlus and put the try catch inside an infinite loop, and worked. Under VS C++ 2010 Express.
Below my code:
// bad_alloc standard exception
#include <iostream>
#include <exception>
using namespace std;
int main ()
{
unsigned int count=0;
while (1)
{
count++;
try
{
int* myarray= new int[1000000];
}
catch (exception& e)
{
cout << "Standard exception: " << e.what() << endl;
cout << "\nAborting after "<< count << " loops";
return -1;
}
}
cout<<"\nNormal finishing...";
return 0;
}
In my case, it was caught after 523 loops. I would be better if i knew a setting to limit the heap to Fisical Memory, if I find I'll make you know.
Related
Lets say Typed Actor A needs to command Typed Actor B to do something. Actor A also needs to know if the command ran succesfully or not but does not want to block operation until this response arrives. My current working theory is that this is best satisfied with Requests. More specifically request(...).then
There is a nice example called "request.cpp" that I have been playing with. My challenge is that I don't really need actor B to return any data. I just need to know if the command was successful or not and if not what error was thrown.
So my question is two fold: 1) Am I correct in thinking that request(...).then is the correct mechanism to do what I want and 2) if so then can a request handle a response that has no data?
This is what I'm trying:
#include <chrono>
#include <cstdint>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include "caf/all.hpp"
using std::endl;
using std::vector;
using std::chrono::seconds;
using namespace caf;
using cell
= typed_actor<result<void>(get_atom, int32_t)>;
struct cell_state {
static constexpr inline const char* name = "cell";
cell::pointer self;
cell_state(cell::pointer ptr) : self(ptr) {}
cell_state(const cell_state&) = delete;
cell_state& operator=(const cell_state&) = delete;
cell::behavior_type make_behavior() {
return {
[=](get_atom, int32_t input) -> result<void> {
if (input != 5) { // Simulate command successful or not
return; // If successful, then return;
}
else {
return sec::unexpected_message; // If not then return error.
}
},
};
}
};
using cell_impl = cell::stateful_impl<cell_state>;
void multiplexed_testee(event_based_actor* self, vector<cell> cells) {
for (cell& x : cells) {
aout(self) << "cell #" << x.id() << " calling" << endl;
self->request(x, seconds(1), get_atom_v, static_cast<int32_t>(x.id()))
.then(
[=](void) {
aout(self) << "cell #" << x.id() << " -> " << "success" << endl;
},
[=](error& err) {
aout(self) << "cell #" << x.id() << " -> " << to_string(err) << endl;
});
}
}
void caf_main(actor_system& system) {
vector<cell> cells;
for (int32_t i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
cells.emplace_back(system.spawn<cell_impl>());
scoped_actor self{ system };
auto x2 = self->spawn(multiplexed_testee, cells);
self->wait_for(x2);
}
CAF_MAIN()
When I compile, I get an error on the empty return statement saying "return-statement with no value, in function returning caf::result<void>. Is there a better way to do this?
My backup plan is to change my command definition to just return a standard error and return sec::none if the operation was successful. But I'm afraid that approach violates the spirit of the whole optional-second-parameter for error conditions. How well am I thinking about all this?
Is there a better way to do this?
You had the right idea. The result<void> expects either an error or a 'void' value. Since void{} isn't a thing in C++, you can do return caf::unit; to tell result<void> to construct an "empty" result. On the receiver's side, you already did the right thing: then with a lambda taking no arguments.
Minor point:
[=](void) { ... }
This is a C-ism from the early days where the compiler allowed you to do silly things. Just drop the void, it serves no purpose. :)
I‘ve been trying to understand smart pointers, and as I understood, smart pointer will destroy themselves once they are not reachable through the code.
For this reason I was trying to implement a demonstration for this behavior:
#include<iostream>
#include<memory>
using namespace std;
void shared(){
cout<<"Shared Pointer:"<<endl;
shared_ptr<int> number = make_shared<int>(50);
cout<<*number<<endl;
cout<<number<<endl;
}
int main(){
int address;
shared();
cout<<"please enter the targeted address:"<<endl;
cin>>address;
int *pointer = (int *) address;
cout<<"we found this number: "<<*pointer<<endl;
}
output:
Shared Pointer:
50
0xf28c30
please enter the targeted address:
15895600 // I just converted the hexdecimal above to decimal number.
we found this number: 50
So I‘m able to retrieve the value 50 from outside the function shared(), by manually entering its address in the console.
Isn‘t supposed to be null or random number? If this is normal then how smartpointers are made to avoid memory leaks!?
P.S: doing the same test using a normal pointer will produce the same results unless we add delete pointer; (which is the expected behavior)
I appreciate any idea about this specific behavior.
To make sure that the memory was deleted it is better to test the smart pointers with a class
class Greeting {
public:
Greeting()
{
std::cout << "Hello" << std::endl;
}
~Greeting()
{
std::cout << "Bye" << std::endl;
}
};
void shared() {
shared_ptr<Greeting> var = make_shared<Greeting>();
}
int main() {
std::cout << "Start" << std::endl;
shared();
std::cout << "End" << std::endl;
}
You will get the following output:
Start //Start of the main
Hello // When creating the object (the resource)
Bye // **When destructing the object (the resource)**
End //End the main
NOTE: C++98
Hi, I'm a little new to c++ and I am writing a databaes program and am attempting to start a timer using the boost::asio package using pthread. The aim of the timer is to start after sql queries have been placed inside a buffer, of which will run an execute function if nothing has been received for a period of time. I have managed to get it to compile, but it doesn't look like the pthread instance is starting.
I have called the pthread inside my getInstance method, and the boost::asio alarm has been set up accordingly. What I will show below is that by calling io_run() directly starts the timer falls into a loop within the alarm.
database.h
void *run_io(void *arg);
class Database
{
private:
static Database *dbInstance; //= NULL;
public:
boost::asio::io_service io_service;
boost::posix_time::millisec interval;
boost::asio::deadline_timer timer;
pthread_t timerThread;
public:
static Database &getInstance()
{
if (!dbInstance)
{
dbInstance = new Database();
// pthread_create(&dbInstance->timerThread,NULL,run_io,&dbInstance->io_service);
std::cout << " INSTANCE CREATED " << std::endl;
pthread_create(&dbInstance->timerThread, NULL, run_io, (void *)&dbInstance->io_service);
// pthread_join(&dbInstance->timerThread, NULL);
}
return *dbInstance;
}
};
database.cpp
Database *Database::dbInstance = NULL;
Database::Database()
: interval(2000), timer(io_service, interval) {}
Database::~Database()
{
sqlite3_close(db);
}
void Database::setAlarm(const boost::system::error_code& /* e */)
{
std::cout << "[TEST] WE ARE IN SET ALARM " << std::endl;
DB_WRITE_TIME = 500;
boost::posix_time::milliseconds interval(DB_WRITE_TIME);
// Reschedule the timer for 1 second in the future:
timer.expires_at(timer.expires_at() + interval);
// Posts the timer event
timer.async_wait(boost::bind(&Database::setAlarm, this, _1));
}
int Database::buffer()
{
// DO BUFFER STUFF
timer.async_wait(boost::bind(&Database::setAlarm, this, _1));
// io_service.run() <-- uncommenting this results in the loop
return rc ;
}
void *run_io(void *arg)
{
boost::asio::io_service *io_service = (boost::asio::io_service *)arg;
io_service->run();
}
So I don't feel like the pthread is even starting. I tried putting a print statement in there to see if it came out, and nothing appeared in my terminal.
---- EDIT ----
I have made changes as per Sehe's advice, however it still does not look like I am able to call the alarm handler (setAlarm()). I had to slightly modify it to be compatible with the whole program, but essentially it is this (I gave the interval time a value of 5000 to give it enough time for the tests):
database.h
class Database
{
private:
static boost::shared_ptr<Database> dbInstance;
private:
typedef boost::asio::io_service io_service;
io_service io;
boost::scoped_ptr<io_service::work> work;
boost::posix_time::millisec interval;
boost::asio::deadline_timer timer;
boost::thread timerThread;
void run_io()
{
std::cout << "ENTER IO THREAD" << std::endl;
io.run();
std::cout << "LEAVE IO THREAD" << std::endl;
}
public:
static Database &getInstance()
{
if (!dbInstance)
{
std::cout << " INSTANCE CREATED " << std::endl;
dbInstance.reset(new Database());
dbInstance->timerThread = boost::thread(boost::bind(&Database::run_io,dbInstance));
}
return *dbInstance;
}
Database(); // <-- default constructor (doesn't take any args)
~Database();
database.cpp
boost::shared_ptr<Database> Database::dbInstance;
static const int DB_WRITE_TIME = 5000;
Database::Database()
: work(new io_service::work(io)), interval(5000), timer(io, interval)
{
// std::cout << " CONSTRUCTED " << std::endl;
}
Database::~Database()
{
// std::cout << " DESTROYED " << std::endl;
// sqlite3_close(db);
}
void Database::setAlarm(const boost::system::error_code& ec)
{
std::cout << "[TEST] WE ARE IN SET ALARM - ec message = " << ec.message() << std::endl;
executeSqlInBuffer(); // once timer expire, call the execute function
if(!ec)
{
boost::posix_time::milliseconds interval(DB_WRITE_TIME);
timer.expires_from_now(interval);
timer.async_wait(boost::bind(&Database::setAlarm, this, _1));
}
}
void Database::teardown()
{
// std::cout << " INSTANCE SHUTTING DOWN " << std::endl;
timer.cancel(); // stop timer loop
work.reset(); // allows io.run() to exit
if(timerThread.joinable())
{
std::cout << " JOINED " << std::endl;
timerThread.join(); // releasing bound of shared_ptr
}
else std::cout << " NOT JOINED " << std::endl;
dbInstance.reset(); // releasing instance
}
int Database::buffer()
{
// do buffering
if(buffer.size() == max_size)
{
executeSqlInBuffer();
}
std::cout << timer.expires_from_now(interval) << std::endl;
// std::cout << " ~ BEFORE TIMER ~ " << std::endl;
timer.async_wait(boost::bind(&Database::setAlarm, this, _1));
return 1;
}
main.cpp
int main()
{
pthread_t thread1; // a few pthreads in main that handle other areas of the program.
pthread_create(&thread1,NULL,thread1Arg,NULL);
pthread_t dbThread; // my pthread for the database
pthread_create(&dbThread,NULL,dbThreadArg,NULL);
Database& database = Database::getInstance();
database.teardown();
pthread_join(thread1,NULL);
pthread_join(dbThread,NULL);
return 0;
}
You can also see here that it enters and leaves the IO thread, and creates an instance, plus the debug output for timer.expires_from_now(interval):
INSTANCE CREATED
JOINED
ENTER IO THREAD
LEAVE IO THREAD
...
...
0 ---> first cycle
1 ---> second cycle
...
1 ---> nth cycle
I'm very ccnfused why anyone who uses Boost or C++11 (or both...) would ever use raw pthread threads (see e.g. C++ boost asynchronous timer to run in parallel with program for a good juxtaposition).
The real problem is likely that you have io_service running out of work (see e.g. https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_57_0/doc/html/boost_asio/reference/io_service__work.html).
If you have no pending async operations the thread just exits.
Another problem is accuracy issues with
timer.expires_at(timer.expires_at() + interval);
It's possible that some handlers take so much time that by the time you schedule your next alarm, the deadline has already expired. It's probably better to use
timer.expires_from_now(interval);
Note this also matches the comment better. The comment suffers from comment already because it says "1 second" but it is actually some defined constant DB_WRITE_TIME
or separate your timer from the other handlers in some other way to guarantee accurate scheduling.
Finally, you had UB due to the absense of any shutdown. The static instance never gets destroyed, but what's worth the non-detached thread never is joined, creating undefined behaviour at shutdown.
This problem is actually almost identical to the one recently discussed here, where I also explains the way work guards work in more detail: asio::io_service is ending immediately with work
Here's a c++11 rewrite with the necessary fix:
Since I now noticed you're that person stuck in c++03 land for some weird reason, a Boost Thread version:
C++03 DEMO/Boost Thread
Live On Coliru
#include <boost/asio.hpp>
#include <boost/make_shared.hpp>
#include <boost/scoped_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#include <iostream>
static const int DB_WRITE_TIME = 500;
class Database
{
private:
static boost::shared_ptr<Database> dbInstance;
Database()
: work(new io_service::work(io)),
interval(750),
timer(io, interval)
{
std::cout << "INSTANCE CREATED" << std::endl;
}
void on_timer_completed(const boost::system::error_code& ec) {
std::cout << "[on_timer_completed] " << ec.message() << std::endl;
if (!ec) {
boost::posix_time::milliseconds interval(DB_WRITE_TIME);
// Reschedule the timer
timer.expires_from_now(interval);
timer.async_wait(boost::bind(&Database::on_timer_completed, this, _1));
}
}
int buffer()
{
// DO BUFFER STUFF
timer.expires_from_now(interval);
timer.async_wait(boost::bind(&Database::on_timer_completed, this, _1));
// io_service.run() <-- uncommenting this results in the loop
return 1; // rc ;
}
public:
void do_stuff() {
buffer(); // whatever it does
}
void teardown() {
std::cout << "INSTANCE SHUTTING DOWN\n";
timer.cancel(); // stop timer loop
work.reset(); // allows io.run() to exit
if (timerThread.joinable()) {
timerThread.join(); // releasing the bound shared_ptr
}
dbInstance.reset(); // releasing the instance
}
~Database() {
//sqlite3_close(db);
std::cout << "INSTANCE DESTROYED\n";
}
private:
typedef boost::asio::io_service io_service;
io_service io;
boost::scoped_ptr<io_service::work> work;
boost::posix_time::millisec interval;
boost::asio::deadline_timer timer;
boost::thread timerThread;
void run_io() {
std::cout << "ENTER IO THREAD" << std::endl;
io.run();
std::cout << "LEAVE IO THREAD" << std::endl;
}
public:
static Database &getInstance()
{
if (!dbInstance)
{
dbInstance.reset(new Database());
dbInstance->timerThread =
boost::thread(boost::bind(&Database::run_io, dbInstance));
}
return *dbInstance;
}
};
boost::shared_ptr<Database> Database::dbInstance;
int main() {
Database& db = Database::getInstance();
boost::this_thread::sleep_for(boost::chrono::seconds(1));
db.do_stuff();
boost::this_thread::sleep_for(boost::chrono::seconds(3));
// ....
db.teardown();
}
Prints
INSTANCE CREATED
ENTER IO THREAD
[on_timer_completed] Success
[on_timer_completed] Success
[on_timer_completed] Success
[on_timer_completed] Success
[on_timer_completed] Success
INSTANCE SHUTTING DOWN
[on_timer_completed] Operation canceled
LEAVE IO THREAD
INSTANCE DESTROYED
I found a very strange problem with this pointer in c++11's lambda.
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#include <boost/signals2.hpp>
boost::signals2::signal<void()> sig;
struct out {
void print_something() {
cout << "something" << endl;
}
out() {
auto start = [&] {
cout << "this in start: " << this << endl;
this->print_something();
};
cout << "this in constructor: " << this << endl;
// sig.connect(start);
sig.connect([&] {
cout << "this in signal: " << this << endl;
start();
});
this->print_something();
}
};
int main() {
out o;
sig();
}
The code prints three this(s) pointer at different location. I was expecting that all the three this pointer should be the same value, but they are not. Here's the output:
this in constructor: 00F3FABB
something
this in signal: 00F3FABB
this in start: 00F3FB00
something
Question 1: Why is this in start has different value? How to correct it?
Question 2: Since the this in start is a different pointer, it shouldn't be able to call print_something(). I would expect a crash on this but it works fine. Why?
You capture start by reference, but the variable start and the contained lambda function get destroyed at the end of out().
Later the signal handler tries to call start(), but the lambda function doesn't exist anymore. Maybe the memory where its this was stored was overwritten in the mean time, causing unexpected output.
The call to print_something() doesn't crash despite of the invalid this because the function doesn't actually try to use this. The printing in the function is independent of this and the lookup of print_somethings address can happen at compile time so that calling the function doesn't access this at runtime.
I am coding a decomposition algorithm including scenario subproblems. I used model pointer to create subproblem optimization models. Then, it is needed to modify the objective function coefficient of each subproblem as the algorithm proceeds. I used pointers to avoid creating the subproblem models every time from scratch. The code is shown partially as follows; the subproblem model pointers (for 2 scenarios) are generated and then objective function coefficients for one scenario subproblem must change using IloObjective::setLinearCoefficients. The modified subproblem must be solved again:
int main (int argc, char **argv)
{
int ScenearioNum=2;//Number of scenarios in small example
IloEnv env;
try {
//Generate the subproblem model pointers:
IloModel* MaxProblemPtr= new(env) IloModel[ScenearioNum];
IloObjective* MaxObjPtr= new(env) IloObjective[ScenearioNum];
for (int s=0;s<ScenearioNum;s++){
IloModel MaxProblem(env);
*(MaxProblemPtr+s)=MaxProblem;
IloObjective MaxObj= IloAdd(MaxProblem, IloMaximize(env));
*(MaxObjPtr+s)=MaxObj;
IloRangeArray ConstMax;
if (s==0){
ConstMax=IloAdd(MaxProblem,
IloRangeArray(env, - IloInfinity,RHS_sub1));
}else{
ConstMax=IloAdd(MaxProblem,
IloRangeArray(env, - IloInfinity,RHS_sub2));
}
for (int j=0;j<2;j++){
X.add(IloNumVar(MaxObj(1)+ConstMax[0](1)));
Y.add(IloNumVar(MaxObj(2)+ConstMax[1](1)));
}
IloCplex maxcplex(MaxProblem);
maxcplex.solve();
if (maxcplex.solve()) {
double currentObj=maxcplex.getObjValue();
cout<<"**max Objective function for s"<<s+1<<" :"<< currentObj<<endl;
}
}
//CHANGING OBJECTIVE FUNCTION OF FIRST SCENARIO
IloNumArray XCoeff(env);
IloObjective tempMaxObj=*MaxObjPtr;
tempMaxObj.setLinearCoefs(X,XCoeff);
IloModel Maxproblem=*MaxProblemPtr;
IloCplex maxcplex(Maxproblem);
}
}
catch (IloException& ex) {
cerr << "Error: " << ex << endl;
}
catch (...) {
cerr << "Error" << endl;
}
env.end();
return 0;
}
But I get the Unhandled exception error in line of "tempMaxObj.setLinearCoefs". I have no idea how to fix this since the model pointer seems to be working correctly. I will appreciate if anyone helps me with that. Thanks.