I am working on a program that requires a queue operation to be performed in multi threaded environment.
I am not sure about the thread local storage for a function, not just a global variable
i tried
__thread int head,tail;
__thread int q[MAX_NODES+2];
__thread void enqueue (int x) {
q[tail] = x;
tail++;
color[x] = GRAY;
}
__thread int dequeue () {
int x = q[head];
head++;
color[x] = BLACK;
return x;
}
I got following error
fordp.c:71: error: function definition declared '__thread'
fordp.c:77: error: function definition declared '__thread'
I read somewhere that a function is already thread safe unless its using shared variables so I tried
__thread int head,tail;
__thread int q[MAX_NODES+2];
void enqueue (int x) {
q[tail] = x;
tail++;
color[x] = GRAY;
}
int dequeue () {
int x = q[head];
head++;
color[x] = BLACK;
return x;
}
It did compile with no error, but my execution result was wrong hinting queue didnt work well with multi-threaded platform.
Can someone please explain me what is going on here??
Any help is appreciated.
__thread advises the compiler to create an instance of the variable for every thread.
I doubt that's what you want for the queue, it's head and tail the threads should concurrently operate on, as modifications done by one thread would not be visible by any other thread.
So do not use __thread here, but protect the concurrent access to the global variables, for example using one or more mutexes.
For your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread-local_storage
I think you're tackling the problem in the wrong way.
Your problem is that you want to associate a Queue object with a function call (e.g. enqueue).
In C these objects are usually referred to as contexts.
What you did is a variation of a global variable. Using per thread local storage is good for scratch space or actual per thread resources. and this is not the case.
The only option to have thread safety and correctness is to add the context to the function call.
I removed the reference to color to simplify things.
struct queue {
unsigned head, tail;
int q[MAX_NODES+2];
};
void enqueue (struct queue* q, int x) {
q->q[q->tail++] = x;
}
int dequeue (struct queue* q) {
int x = q->q[q->head++];
return x;
}
Note: you should perform checks on pointers and indexes.
Related
I'm working on a high-reliance implementation of an algorithm for an embedded system.
in main.c:
//.. in main()
int queue_buffer[QUEUE_LEN + 1] = { 0 };
Queue queue;
queue_init(&queue, QUEUE_LEN, queue_buffer);
do_things_on_queue(&queue);
//.. in main()
in queue.c:
void queue_init(Queue *q, int len, int *data) {
q->head = 0;
q->tail = 0;
q->len = len;
q->data = data; // an array of length `len + 1`
}
in queue.h:
typedef struct queue {
int head;
int tail;
int len;
int *data;
} Queue;
I would like to 1. have main.c to not know about Queue; and 2. not use malloc for intializing queue_buffer_ but rather do it statically.
this implies that ideally main.c would be:
//.. in some function
Queue *queue = queue_init(something_eventually);
do_things_with_queue(queue);
//.. in some function
Is it possible to modify queue_init in queue.cto achieve this in C99? If so, what's the best approach?
Tentative Solutions
I am aware of the technique discussed in this post yet they seems unfeasible without using malloc. I know for sure that I will simultaneously have 4 queues at most. This makes me think that I could declare a memory pool for the queues as a static global array of queues of size 4. Is it ok to use global variables in this case?
#KamilKuk suggested to just have queue_init to return the structure itself since QUEUE_LEN is known at compile time. This requires the following:
in queue.c:
Queue queue_init(void) {
Queue q;
q.head = 0;
q.tail = 0;
q.len = QUEUE_LEN;
for (int i=0; i < QUEUE_LEN; i++)
q.data[i] = 0;
return q;
}
in queue.h:
typedef struct queue {
int head;
int tail;
int len;
int data[QUEUE_LEN];
} Queue;
Queue queue_init(void);
This appears to greatly simplify the structure initialization.
However this does not solve the privacy problem, since main.c should know about Queue to initialize this struct.
Thank you.
I would like to 1. have main.c to not know about Queue; and 2. not use
malloc for intializing queue_buffer_ but rather do it statically.
this implies that ideally main.c would be:
//.. in some function
Queue queue = queue_init(something_eventually);
do_things_with_queue(&queue);
//.. in some function
No, your objectives do not imply a solution as described. You cannot declare or use an object of type Queue anywhere that the definition of that type is not visible. That follows directly from the language's rules, but if you want a more meaningful justification then consider that even if main does not access any of the members of Queue, it still needs the definition simply to know how much space to reserve for one.
It's not obvious to me that it serves a useful purpose to make type Queue opaque in main.c (or anywhere), but if that's what you want then in that scope you can forward declare it, never define it, and work only with pointers to it:
typedef struct queue Queue;
// ...
Queue *queue = queue_init(something_eventually);
do_things_with_queue(queue);
For that to work without dynamic memory allocation, the pointed-to Queue objects must have static storage duration, but that does not mean that they need to be globals -- either in the sense of being accessible via a name with external linkage, or in the sense of being declared at file scope.
Additionally, you have the option of allocating the data arrays automatically, as in your example code, so as to not tie up that memory in queues when they are not in use. If you prefer, you can wrap that up in a macro or two for a bit of additional ease of use (left as an exercise).
For example,
queue.h
typedef struct queue Queue;
Queue *queue_init(int queue_size, int queue_data[]);
void queue_release(Queue *queue);
queue.c
#include "queue.h"
struct queue {
int head;
int tail;
int len;
int *data;
};
Queue *queue_init(int queue_len, int queue_data[]) {
// queue_pool has static storage duration and no linkage
static Queue queue_pool[4] = {{0}};
// Find an available Queue, judging by the data pointers
for (Queue *queue = queue_pool;
queue < queue_pool + sizeof(queue_pool) / sizeof(*queue_pool);
queue++) {
if (queue->data == NULL) {
// This one will do. Initialize it and return a pointer to it.
queue->head = 0;
queue->tail = 0;
queue->len = queue_len;
queue->data = queue_data;
return queue;
}
}
// no available Queue
return NULL;
}
void queue_release(Queue *queue) {
if (queue) {
queue->data = NULL;
}
}
main.c
// ... in some function
int queue_data[SOME_QUEUE_LENGTH];
Queue *queue = queue_init(SOME_QUEUE_LENGTH, queue_data);
do_things_with_queue(queue);
queue_release(queue);
// ...
Of course, if you prefer, you can put the queue data directly into the queue structure, as in your tentative solution, and maybe provide a flag there to indicate whether the queue is presently in use. That would relieve users of any need to provide storage, at the cost of tying up the storage for all the elements of all the queues for the whole duration of the program.
The best way to do this is to pass a buffer and its size to the init function, exactly as you already have.
It is a very bad idea to worry about calling a function versus having the data fixed at compile time. Both the execution time and code size for a tiny initialization like this is negligible. Making your code interface awkward just to save a few instructions at startup is not just a waste of effort, it makes the code hard to maintain and risks introducing bugs.
There are a number of embedded systems or libraries that provide a macro which declares both the storage array and the control structure in one go and gives them a name which is known only to the library, and then you have to use a macro to generate the name every time you access the item. For an example of this you might look at osMailQDef in CMSIS-OS. I don't really recommend this method though. It is too easy to get wrong, whereas doing it the usual way is easy to read and any reviewer will be able to spot a mistake straight away.
I would typically do:
// queue.h
#define QUEUE_INIT(data, len) { .len = len, .data = data }
#define QUEUE_INIT_ON_STACK(len) QUEUE_INIT((char[len]){0}, len)
// main.c
static Queue queue = QUEUE_INIT_ON_STACK(QUEUE_LEN + 1);
As for PIMPL idiom, it's easy to implement with descriptors just like file descriptors in LINUX, especially when the count is static.
// queue.h
typedef Queue int;
void do_things_with_queue(Queue);
// queue.c
struct RealQueue { stuff; };
static struct RealQeueue arr[4] = { stuff };
static struct RealQeueue *get_RealQueue(Queue i) {
assert(0 <= i && i < sizeof(arr)/sizeof(*arr));
return &arr[i];
}
void do_things_with_queue(Queue i) {
struct RealQueue *queue = get_RealQueue(i);
}
// main.c
static Queue queue = 1;
// etc.
Or you can break all hell and synchronize alignment between source and header file:
// queue.h
struct Queue {
// This has to be adjusted __for each compiler and environment__
alignas(60) char data[123];
};
#define QUEUE_INIT() { 0xAA, 0xBB, etc.. constant precomputed data }
// queue.c
struct RealQeueue { stuff; };
static_assert(alingof(struct RealQueue) == alignof(struct Queue), "");
static_assert(sizeof(struct RealQueue) == sizeof(struct Queue), "");
void do_things_with_queue(Queue *i) {
struct RealQueue *queue = (struct RealQueue*)i->data;
}
I would like to create a wrapper for c functions, so that I can convert a function call of the form ret = function(arg1,arg2,arg3); into the form /*void*/ function_wrapper(/*void*/);. That is similar to function objects in C++ and boost bind.
Is this possible? how can I do it?
Update:
To explain in more details what I am looking for:
We start with this function:
int f(int i){
//do stuff
return somevalue;
}
Obvioulsy, it is called like this:
// do stuff
int x = 0;
ret = f(0);
// do more stuff.
I would like to do some magic that will wrap the function into void function(void)
struct function_object fo;
fo.function_pointer = &f;
fo.add_arg(x, int);
fo.set_ret_pointer(&ret);
fo.call();
Note: I saw that there was a vote for closing this question and marking it as unclear. Please do not do that. I have a legitimate need to get this question answered. If you need explanation, ask and I will be glad to elaborate.
I came up with a better code that might allow you to do what you want. First I'll explain how it works, show the code and explain why I still don't think it's a good idea to use it (though the code might open doors for improvements that addresses those issues).
Functionality:
Before you start using the "function objects", you have to call an initialization function (FUNCTIONOBJ_initialize();), which will initialize the mutexes on every data structure used in the library.
After initializing, every time you want to call one of those "function objects", without using the parameters, you will have to set it up first. This is done by creating a FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t pointer and calling get_function_handler(). This will search for a free FUNCTIONOBJ_handler data structure that can be used at the moment.
If none is found (all FUNCTIONOBJ_handler data structures are busy, being used by some function call) NULL is returned.
If get_function_handler() does find a FUNCTIONOBJ_handler data structure it will try to lock the FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder data structure, that holds the ID of the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler of the function about to be called.
If FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder is locked already, get_function_handler() will hang until it's unlocked by the thread using it.
Once FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder is locked, the ID of the grabbed FUNCTIONOBJ_handler is wrote on it and the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler pointer is returned by get_function_handler.
With the pointer in hand, the user can set the pointer to the arguments and the return variable with set_args_pointer and set_return_pointer, which both take a void * as arguments.
Finally, you can call the function you want. It has to:
1 - Grab the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler ID from the FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder data structure and use it to get a pointer to the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler itself.
2 - Use the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler to access the arguments.
3 - Return by using one of the return function (on the example we have ret_int, which will return an integer and unlock the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler)
Below is a simplified mind map describing a bit of what is going on:
Finally, the code:
funcobj.h:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#define MAX_SIMULTANEOUS_CALLS 1024
typedef struct {
//Current ID about to be called
int current_id;
//Mutex
pthread_mutex_t id_holder_mutex;
} FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder_t;
typedef struct {
//Attributes
void *arguments;
void *return_pointer;
//Mutex
pthread_mutex_t handler_mutex;
} FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t;
FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t FUNCTIONOBJ_handler[MAX_SIMULTANEOUS_CALLS];
FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder_t FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder;
void set_return_pointer(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, void *pointer);
void set_args_pointer(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, void *pointer);
void ret_int(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, int return_value);
void FUNCTIONOBJ_initialize(void);
FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *get_function_handler(void);
funcobj.c:
#include "funcobj.h"
void set_return_pointer(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, void *pointer){
this->return_pointer = pointer;
}
void set_args_pointer(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, void *pointer){
this->arguments = pointer;
}
void ret_int(FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this, int return_value){
if(this->return_pointer){
*((int *) (this->return_pointer)) = return_value;
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(this->handler_mutex));
}
void FUNCTIONOBJ_initialize(void){
for(int i = 0; i < MAX_SIMULTANEOUS_CALLS; ++i){
pthread_mutex_init(&FUNCTIONOBJ_handler[i].handler_mutex, NULL);
}
pthread_mutex_init(&FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder.id_holder_mutex, NULL);
}
FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *get_function_handler(void){
int i = 0;
while((0 != pthread_mutex_trylock(&FUNCTIONOBJ_handler[i].handler_mutex)) && (i < MAX_SIMULTANEOUS_CALLS)){
++i;
}
if(i >= MAX_SIMULTANEOUS_CALLS){
return NULL;
}
//Sets the ID holder to hold this ID until the function is called
pthread_mutex_lock(&FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder.id_holder_mutex);
FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder.current_id = i;
return &FUNCTIONOBJ_handler[i];
}
main.c:
#include "funcobj.h"
#include <string.h>
//Function:
void print(void){
//First the function must grab the handler that contains all its attributes:
//The FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder is mutex locked, so we can just access its value and
//then free the lock:
FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this = &FUNCTIONOBJ_handler[FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder.current_id];
//We dont need the id_holder anymore, free it!
pthread_mutex_unlock(&FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder.id_holder_mutex);
//Do whatever the function has to do
printf("%s\n", (char *) this->arguments);
//Return the value to the pointed variable using the function that returns an int
ret_int(this, 0);
}
void *thread_entry_point(void *data){
int id = (int) data;
char string[100];
snprintf(string, 100, "Thread %u", id);
int return_val;
FUNCTIONOBJ_handler_t *this;
for(int i = 0; i < 200; ++i){
do {
this = get_function_handler();
} while(NULL == this);
set_args_pointer(this, string);
set_return_pointer(this, &return_val);
print();
}
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv){
//Initialize global data strucutres (set up mutexes)
FUNCTIONOBJ_initialize();
//testing with 20 threads
pthread_t thread_id[20];
for(int i = 0; i < 20; ++i){
pthread_create(&thread_id[i], NULL, &thread_entry_point, (void *) i);
}
for(int i = 0; i < 20; ++i){
pthread_join(thread_id[i], NULL);
}
return 0;
}
To compile: gcc -o program main.c funcobj.c -lpthread
Reasons to avoid it:
By using this, you are limiting the number of "function objects" that can be running simultaneously. That's because we need to use global data structures to hold the information required by the functions (arguments and return pointer).
You will be seriously slowing down the program when using multiple threads if those use "function objects" frequently: Even though many functions can run at the same time, only a single function object can be set up at a time. So at least for that fraction of time it takes for the program to set up the function and actually call it, all other threads trying to run a function will be hanging waiting the the data structure to be unlocked.
You still have to write some non-intuitive code at the beginning and end of each function you want to work without arguments (grabbing the FUNCTIONOBJ_handler structure, unlocking the FUNCTIONOBJ_id_holder structure, accessing arguments through the pointer you grabbed and returning values with non-built-in functions). This increases the chances of bugs drastically if care is not taken, specially some nasty ones:
Increases the chances of deadlocks. If you forget to unlock one of the data structures in any point of your code, you might end up with a program that works fine at some moments, but randomly freeze completely at others (because all function calls without arguments will be hanging waiting for the lock to be freed). That is a risk that happens on multithreaded programs anyways, but by using this you are increasing the amount of code that requires locks unnecessarily (for style purposes).
Complicates the use of recursive functions: Every time you call the function object you'll have to go through the set up phrase (even when inside another function object). Also, if you call the recursive function enough times to fill all FUNCTIONOBJ_handler structures the program will deadlock.
Amongst other reasons I might not notice at the moment :p
Can anyone tell me why my shared memory data structure (implemented using sys/shm.h) is not being read correctly by pthreads? This is an edited version of my question, with a reduced amount of code. Hopefully its easier to navigate.
Initially, the structure being referenced is created in shared memory space, so two different applications can read and write to it. The aim: to have one application update the shared structure, and the other read it using pthreads. So far everything things are working to an extent. Both applications can read and write to the shared memory, except the pthreads. they don't seem to pick up the modified shared structure?
An overview of the code is below. It is based on a basic runtime system, however, it is not overly complicated. The function executed within the pthreads is:
void* do_work(void *p)
The shared structure is:
typedef struct WL_CTRL_T
Currently all i am trying do is print out the elements of the array. Initially all elements are set to true. Halfway through the execution, using GDB to halt the process, i update the structure from outside, using the other application, by changing elements 0 and 1 to false, then continue to the process. At this i also print out the state of the array from each application via the sequential code, and the print out is correct. However, when the threads are set off, they print the original state of the array, all true...
The structure contains an array of structs, where the active bool field is read by the pthread
I have tried many ways to try and correct this problem, but no joy.
Any advice appreciated, thanks :-)
/*controller api.h*/
typedef struct WL_CTRL_T
{
int targetNumThreads;
int sizeBuf;
int numEntries;
int nextIdx;
thread_state_control_t volatile thread_state_control[THREAD_NUM];
mon_entry_t buffer[];
} wl_ctrl_t;
typedef struct THREADPOOL_T
{
int num_threads;
int qsize;
pthread_t *threads;
todo_t *qhead;
todo_t *qtail;
pthread_mutex_t qlock;
pthread_cond_t q_not_empty;
pthread_cond_t q_empty;
int shutdown;
int dont_accept;
}threadpool_t;
typedef struct TODO_T
{
void (*routine) (void*);
void * arg;
int lock;
struct todo_t* next;
} todo_t;
The function assigned to the pthread
/********************************************************************
*
* do_work:
*
* this is the reusable thread, assigned work via the dispatch
* function.
*
********************************************************************/
void* do_work(void *p)
{
int c = 0;
thread_args_t *thread_args = (thread_args_t*)p;
threadpool_t *pool = thread_args->threadpool;
todo_t* workload;
wl_ctrl_t volatile *wcc = thread_args->wl_ctrl;
while(1)
{
pool->qsize = pool->qsize;
/* while work que is empty, spinlock */
while( pool->qsize == 0)
{
if(c<1)
printf("thread: %d spin-lock \n", thread_args->thread_id);
c++;
}
/* update the threadpool, minus current workload */
workload = pool->qhead;
pool->qsize--;
if(pool->qsize == 0)
{
pool->qhead = NULL;
pool->qtail = NULL;
}
else
{
pool->qhead = workload->next;
}
/* execute workload */
(workload->routine) (workload->arg);
free(workload);
/* check this threads wait state */
printf("In thread: %d\n",wcc->thread_state_control[thread_args->thread_id].active);
}
}
I'm creating a threadpool in C with pthreads, and while I have an idea of how it works, I have a few questions about the intricacies.
I've created a struct which is supposed to be my representation of a threadpool, containing a list of function pointers to run, we'll call it the work_list. The threadpool struct also holds mutex's(?) and conditions to syncronize access, an int for the number of threads and an array holding the thread id's of each worked thread.The work_list itself holds structs that represent functions to be completed, each instance of those structs holds a void* to a function, a void* for args and a void* to place results. When coded this idea fleshes out like this:
typedef struct threadpool
{
list work_list;
pthread_t* tidArray;
int num_threads;
pthread_mutex_t lock;
pthread_cond_t condition;
} threadpool;
and:
typedef struct fuFunction
{
void* functionCall;
void* functionArgs;
void* returnValue;
list_elem elem;
} fuFunction;
I currently have a thread which initializes the a pool. It takes in a int num_of_threads, and returns a pointer to instance of a threadpool with all the members initialized. The body I've created looks like this:
threadpool * threadpool_init(int num_of_threads)
{
threadpool* retPool = (threadpool*) malloc(sizeof(threadpool));
//Initialize retPool members
int x;
for(x = 0; x < num_of_threads; x++)
{
pthread_t tid;
if( pthread_create(&tid, NULL, thread_start, retPool) != 0)
{
printf("Error creating worker thread\nExting\n");
exit(1);
}
retPool->tidArray[x] = tid;
}
return retPool;
}
The function that each thread runs when started, the worker function, thread_star, looks like this so far:
void *thread_start(void* args)
{
threadpool* argue = (threadpool*) args;
pthread_mutex_lock(&(argue->lock));
while(\* threadpool not shut down*\)
{
if(!list_empty(&argue->work_list))
{
fuFunction* tempFu = list_entry(list_pop_front(&argue->workQ), fuFunction, elem);
\\WHAT TO PUT HERE
}
pthread_cond_wait(&argue->condition, &argue->lock);
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(argue->lock));
}
My question is, assuming this code I currently have is right, how would I get the worker threads to run the function in the tempFu that it makes in the worker function? Sorry if this is long or confusing, I find this much easier to explain in conversation. If this is FUBAR, let me know as well.
the struct element signiture "void* functionCall;" is wrong.
use a function pointer instead.
Eg:
typedef struct fuFunction
{
void* (*functionCall)( void* arg);
void* functionArgs;
void* returnValue;
list_elem elem;
} fuFunction;
then put there:
tempfu->returnValue = (*tempfu->functionCall)(tempfu->functionArgs);
/*language C code*/
#include "windows.h"
typedef struct object_s
{
SRWLOCK lock;
int data;
} object_t, *object_p; /*own and pointer type*/
void thread(object_p x)
{
AcquireSRWLockExclusive(&x->lock);
//...do something that could probably change x->data value to 0
if(x->data==0)
free(x);
else
ReleaseSRWLockExclusive(&x->lock);
}
void main()
{
int i;
object_p object=(object_p)malloc(sizeof(object_t));
InitializeSRWLock(&object->lock);
for(i=0;i<3;i++)
CreateThread(0,0,thread,object,0);
}
As you can figure out in the codes above, what I have to accomplish is to let one thread conditionally free the object on which the other two may block. Codes above are obviously flawed because if object is set free along with the lock, all blocking threads give us nowhere but wrong.
A solution below
/*language C code*/
#include "windows.h"
typedef struct object_s
{
/*change: move lock to stack in main()*/
int data;
} object_t, *object_p; /*own and pointer type*/
void thread(void * x)
{
struct {
PSRWLOCK l;
object_p o;
} * _x=x;
AcquireSRWLockExclusive(_x->l);
//...do something that could probably change x->data value to 0
if(_x->o->data==0)
free(_x->o);
ReleaseSRWLockExclusive(&x->lock);
}
void main()
{
int i;
SRWLOCK lock; /*lock over here*/
object_p object=(object_p)malloc(sizeof(object_t));
InitializeSRWLock(&lock);
/*pack for thread context*/
struct
{
PSRWLOCK l;
object_p o;
} context={&lock, object};
for(i=0;i<3;i++)
CreateThread(0,0,thread,&context,0);
}
works in this case but not applicable however, in my final project because there is actually a dynamic linked list of objects. By applying this solution it means that there must be a list of locks accordingly, each lock for an object and moreover, when a certain object is set free, its lock must be set free at the same time. There is nothing new compared with the first code section.
Now I wonder if there is an alternative solution to this. Thank you very much!
The solution is to not allocate the lock together with the data. I would suggest that you move the data out of that struct and replace it with a pointer to the data. Your linked list can then free the data first, and then the node, without any problems. Here's some pseudo code:
typedef struct
{
lock_t lock;
int* data_ptr;
} something_t;
void init_something (something_t* thing, ...)
{
thing->lock = init_lock();
thing->data_ptr = malloc(...); // whatever the data is supposed to be
}
void free_something (somthing_t* thing)
{
lock(thing->lock);
free(thing->data_ptr);
thing->data_ptr = NULL;
unlock(thing->lock);
}
...
void linked_list_delete_node (...)
{
free_something(node_to_delete->thing);
free(node_to_delete);
}
...
void thread (void* x)
{
lock(x->lock);
//...do something that could probably change x->data_ptr->data... to 0
if(x->data_ptr->data == 0)
{
free_something(x->data_ptr->data);
}
unlock(x->lock);
}
AcquireSRWLockExclusive(lock);
if(_x->o->data==0)
free(_x);
ReleaseSRWLockExclusive(lock);
As a sidenote, a C program for Windows can never return void. A hosted C program must always return int. Your program will not compile on a C compiler.
Also, CreateThread() expects a function pointer to a function returning a 32-bit value and taking a void pointer as parameter. You pass a different kind of function pointer, function pointer casts aren't allowed in C, nor am I sure what sort of madness Windows will execute if it gets a different function pointer than what it expects. You invoke undefined behavior. This can cause your program to crash or behave in unexpected or random ways.
You need to change your thread function to DWORD WINAPI thread (LPVOID param);