Threads are part of the process. If the process exits, they (along with all other process resources) cease to exist.
Calling the exit subroutine terminates the entire process, including all its threads. In a multithreaded program, the exit subroutine should only be used when the entire process needs to be terminated; for example, in the case of an unrecoverable error.
Detach thread. Detaches the thread represented by the object from the calling thread, allowing them to execute independently from each other. Both threads continue without blocking nor synchronizing in any way. Note that when either one ends execution, its resources are released.
5.6 [ISO/IEC 9899:2011], states that a thread shall not be joined once it was previously joined or detached. Similarly, subclause 7.26. 5.3 states that a thread shall not be detached once it was previously joined or detached.
The answer to the original question "what happens to a detached thread when main()
exits" is:
It continues running (because the standard doesn't say it is stopped), and that's well-defined, as long as it touches neither (automatic|thread_local) variables of other threads nor static objects.
This appears to be allowed to allow thread managers as static objects (note in [basic.start.term]/4 says as much, thanks to @dyp for the pointer).
Problems arise when the destruction of static objects has finished, because then execution enters a regime where only code allowed in signal handlers may execute ([basic.start.term]/1, 1st sentence). Of the C++ standard library, that is only the <atomic>
library ([support.runtime]/9, 2nd sentence). In particular, that—in general—excludes condition_variable
(it's implementation-defined whether that is save to use in a signal handler, because it's not part of <atomic>
).
Unless you've unwound your stack at this point, it's hard to see how to avoid undefined behaviour.
The answer to the second question "can detached threads ever be joined again" is:
Yes, with the *_at_thread_exit
family of functions (notify_all_at_thread_exit()
, std::promise::set_value_at_thread_exit()
, ...).
As noted in footnote [2] of the question, signalling a condition variable or a semaphore or an atomic counter is not sufficient to join a detached thread (in the sense of ensuring that the end of its execution has-happened-before the receiving of said signalling by a waiting thread), because, in general, there will be more code executed after e.g. a notify_all()
of a condition variable, in particular the destructors of automatic and thread-local objects.
Running the signalling as the last thing the thread does (after destructors of automatic and thread-local objects has-happened) is what the _at_thread_exit
family of functions was designed for.
So, in order to avoid undefined behaviour in the absence of any implementation guarantees above what the standard requires, you need to (manually) join a detached thread with an _at_thread_exit
function doing the signalling or make the detached thread execute only code that would be safe for a signal handler, too.
According to std::thread::detach
:
Separates the thread of execution from the thread object, allowing execution to continue independently. Any allocated resources will be freed once the thread exits.
From pthread_detach
:
The pthread_detach() function shall indicate to the implementation that storage for the thread can be reclaimed when that thread terminates. If thread has not terminated, pthread_detach() shall not cause it to terminate. The effect of multiple pthread_detach() calls on the same target thread is unspecified.
Detaching threads is mainly for saving resources, in case the application does not need to wait for a thread to finish (e.g. daemons, which must run until process termination):
std::thread
object go out of scope without joining, what normally leads to a call to std::terminate()
on destruction.The behavior on process termination is the same as the one for the main thread, which could at least catch some signals. Whether or not other threads can handle signals is not that important, as one could join or terminate other threads within the main thread's signal handler invocation. (Related question)
As already stated, any thread, whether detached or not, will die with its process on most OSes. The process itself can be terminated by raising a signal, by calling exit()
or by returning from the main function. However, C++11 cannot and does not try to define the exact behaviour of the underlying OS, whereas the developers of a Java VM can surely abstract such differences to some extent. AFAIK, exotic process and threading models are usually found on ancient platforms (to which C++11 probably won't be ported) and various embedded systems, which could have a special and/or limited language library implementation and also limited language support.
If threads aren't supported std::thread::get_id()
should return an invalid id (default constructed std::thread::id
) as there's a plain process, which does not need a thread object to run and the constructor of a std::thread
should throw a std::system_error
. This is how I understand C++11 in conjunction with today's OSes. If there's an OS with threading support, which doesn't spawn a main thread in its processes, let me know.
If one needs to keep control over a thread for proper shutdown, one can do that by using sync primitives and/or some sort of flags. However, In this case, setting a shutdown flag followed by a join is the way I prefer, since there's no point in increasing complexity by detaching threads, as the resources would be freed at the same time anyway, where the few bytes of the std::thread
object vs. higher complexity and possibly more sync primitives should be acceptable.
Consider the following code:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
void thread_fn() {
std::this_thread::sleep_for (std::chrono::seconds(1));
std::cout << "Inside thread function\n";
}
int main()
{
std::thread t1(thread_fn);
t1.detach();
return 0;
}
Running it on a Linux system, the message from the thread_fn is never printed. The OS indeed cleans up thread_fn()
as soon as main()
exits. Replacing t1.detach()
with t1.join()
always prints the message as expected.
The fate of the thread after the program exits is undefined behavior. But a modern operating system will clean up all threads created by the process on closing it.
When detaching an std::thread
, these three conditions will continue to hold:
*this
no longer owns any threadjoinable()
will always equal to false
get_id()
will equal std::thread::id()
When the main thread (that is, the thread that runs the main() function) terminates, then the process terminates and all other threads stop.
Reference: https://stackoverflow.com/a/4667273/2194843
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With