Is a boost::thread automatically removed from a boost::thread_group when it terminates?

Question

^{(This question, though similar, didn't really answer my question.)}

I've had problems with my own "thread group" implementation, and being no closer to solving or even identifying the issue, I'm looking into just using boost::thread_grp.

Now, from what documentation I can find on the subject¹, I've always believed that thread objects — no matter the duration of their actual work — remain alive and a part of a thread group until the thread group is destroyed.

However, a cursory test seems to indicate that boost::thread_group::size() decreases on its own as threads do their work and terminate. That would imply that the thread objects themselves are being cleaned up for me, too.

Is this true? Can I rely on it?

#include <cassert>
#include <unistd.h>         // for sleep()
#include <boost/thread.hpp>

boost::mutex m;
unsigned int count = 0;

void func() {
   boost::mutex::scoped_lock l(m);
   count++;
}

int main()
{
   boost::thread_group grp;
   for (size_t i = 0; i < 300; i++)
      grp.create_thread(func());
   
   sleep(10);
   
   assert(count == 300);
   assert(grp.size() == 0);  // passes, in my tests
   
   // ^ Can I rely on that?
   //   Do I really have no thread objects eating up
   //     memory, at this point?
   
   grp.join_all();
   // ^ Then I guess this is doing nothing, in this case...
}

If it is, then my entire original has_threads implementation was just a broken clone and I've wasted my time. :)

^{And, yes, assert was a really poor choice for this snippet, since I guess it could lead to any unlikely-outstanding threads from butchering the memory under what used to be count? Anyway, never mind that.}

---

¹ - I'm stuck on Boost 1.40, but the documentation on the matter seems to be the same for more recent versions.

---

Update

This thread is an example of where people are saying the opposite of what my testing has shown. It does also provide a decent solution if that's the case, though; it's nice that thread_group is totally thread-safe (though I'm not convinced that that shared_ptr::get() is thread-safe; what if the thread ends before the shared_ptr::reset has finished?). Do I need to employ this solution?

Answer 1

No, I misinterpreted the results of my test by not abstracting away the task scheduler that creates threads for me. In short, I was checking size() on the wrong boost::thread_group.

In fact, boost::thread_group::size() doesn't go down on its own as threads terminate, so I'll be using an adapted version of the solution provided in the forum post I linked to in the question update.