child thread, zsocket_set_linger assert error,when main thread call zctx_destroy (&ctx);

[balanceren]

in Windows platform.
when main thread call zctx_destroy (&ctx), the child thread created by zthread_fork, cause assert false in zsocket_set_linger();

I am not clear the zthread lib, so I add
void * child = zthread_fork(ctx, client_task, "child1");
......
zstr_send(child,"DELETE"); //the client_task handle the DELETE cmd
char * str = zstr_recv(child);
free(str);
zctx_destroy (&ctx);

use zstr_recv to wait the client_task finish.
work like join.

is there a fun works like zthread_join.

[ulikoehler]

Could you provide more information about the assertion that fails?
Maybe this is related to #164

[balanceren]

sorry,i don't know how to modify the style to make the code clear.

int main (void)
{
    zctx_t *ctx = zctx_new ();
    void * child = zthread_fork(ctx, client_task, "child1");
    int t = 0;
    while(!zctx_interrupted && t != 20)
    {
        char cmd[10]={0};
        sprintf(cmd,"Get %d\n",t++);
        zstr_send(child,cmd);
        Sleep(300);
    }
    /*
    if I don't do these below, 
    the assert false,after call zctx_destroy (&ctx);
    */
    //zstr_send(child,"DELETE");
    //char * str = zstr_recv(child);
    //free(str);

    zctx_destroy (&ctx);
    return 0;
}

static void client_task (void *args, zctx_t *ctx, void *pipe)
{
    void * client = zsocket_new (ctx, ZMQ_DEALER);
    void * sub   = zsocket_new(ctx,ZMQ_SUB);
    char identity [10]={0};
    if(args)
    {
        int len = min(strlen((char *)args),9);
        memcpy(identity,args,len);
        zsockopt_set_identity (client, identity);
    }

    zsocket_connect (client, "tcp://localhost:5570");
    zsocket_connect (sub, "tcp://localhost:5556");
    bool run = true;
    while (run) {
        zmq_pollitem_t items [] = { 
            { client, 0, ZMQ_POLLIN, 0 },
            { sub, 0, ZMQ_POLLIN, 0 },
            { pipe, 0, ZMQ_POLLIN, 0 }};

            int rc = zmq_poll (items, 3, 1000);
            if (rc == -1)
                break;          //  Interrupted
            if (items [0].revents & ZMQ_POLLIN)
            {
                printf("client\n");
            }
            if (items [1].revents & ZMQ_POLLIN)
            {
                printf("sub\n");
            }
            if (items [2].revents & ZMQ_POLLIN)
            {
                char * str = zstr_recv (pipe);
                printf("pipe__%s\n",str);
                if(strcmp(str,"DELETE")==0)
                    run = false;
                else    //cmd
                    zstr_send(client,str);
                free(str);
            }
    }
    zstr_send(pipe,"END");
    zsocket_destroy(ctx,client);
    zsocket_destroy(ctx,sub);
}

[hintjens]

I've not tried yet to reproduce this, but try removing the
zsocket_destroy() calls. You don't need these and they may be causing
zctx_destroy confusion. It shouldn't assert anyhow.

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM, balanceren notifications@github.comwrote:

int main (void)
{
zctx_t ctx = zctx_new ();
*
void * child = zthread_fork(ctx, client_task, "child1");
*

• int t = 0;
  while(!zctx_interrupted && t != 20)
  {
  char cmd[10]={0};
  sprintf(cmd,"Get %d\n",t++);
  zstr_send(child,cmd);
  Sleep(300);
  }
  /*
  if I don't do these below,
  the assert false,after call zctx_destroy (&ctx);
  */
  //zstr_send(child,"DELETE");
  //char * str = zstr_recv(child);
  //free(str);

zctx_destroy (&ctx);
return 0;

}

static void client_task (void *args, zctx_t *ctx, void *pipe)
{
void * client = zsocket_new (ctx, ZMQ_DEALER);
void * sub = zsocket_new(ctx,ZMQ_SUB);
char identity [10]={0};
if(args)
{
int len = min(strlen((char *)args),9);
memcpy(identity,args,len);
zsockopt_set_identity (client, identity);
}

zsocket_connect (client, "tcp://localhost:5570");

zsocket_connect (sub, "tcp://localhost:5556");
bool run = true;
while (run) {
zmq_pollitem_t items [] = {
{ client, 0, ZMQ_POLLIN, 0 },
{ sub, 0, ZMQ_POLLIN, 0 },
{ pipe, 0, ZMQ_POLLIN, 0 }};

int rc = zmq_poll (items, 3, 1000);
if (rc == -1)
    break;          //  Interrupted
if (items [0].revents & ZMQ_POLLIN)
{
    printf("client\n");
}
if (items [1].revents & ZMQ_POLLIN)
{
    printf("sub\n");
}
if (items [2].revents & ZMQ_POLLIN)
{
    char * str = zstr_recv (pipe);
    printf("pipe__%s\n",str);
    if(strcmp(str,"DELETE")==0)
        run = false;
    else    //cmd
        zstr_send(client,str);
    free(str);
}

}
zstr_send(pipe,"END");
zsocket_destroy(ctx,client);
zsocket_destroy(ctx,sub);

}

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/199#issuecomment-20049236
.

[balanceren]

In first version,I didn't add the zsocket_destroy() ,it is the same error

[balanceren]

I debug the zmq when it term, and find the bug, but I don't know how to fix it.

when the child thread get the term cmd,and
call zctx__socket_destroy,this below code will call

void zsocket_set_linger (void *zocket, int linger) 
{
#   if defined (ZMQ_LINGER)
    int rc = zmq_setsockopt (zocket, ZMQ_LINGER, &linger, sizeof (int));
    printf("errorno =%x=%d____%d\n",_errno(),errno,ETERM);
    assert (rc == 0 || errno == ETERM);

the assert condition is rc and the errno,
if the ctx_terminated is true, the errno will be set to ETERM,

  int zmq::socket_base_t::setsockopt (int option_, const void *optval_,
     size_t optvallen_)
 {
     if (unlikely (ctx_terminated)) {
        errno = ETERM;
        printf("setsockopt =%x=%d____%d\n",_errno(),errno,ETERM);
        return -1;
    }

but, I found the _errno() has different address, so It is the reason why errno != ETERM.

[hintjens]

Can you get more information?

• which socket is this failing on
• which zctx, the parent or the child thread
• what is the errno that it is actually getting

Thanks

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 4:22 AM, balanceren notifications@github.comwrote:

I debug the zmq when it term, and find the bug, but I don't know how to
fix it.

when the child thread get the term cmd,and
call zctx__socket_destroy,this below code will call
void zsocket_set_linger (void *zocket, int linger)
{

if defined (ZMQ_LINGER)

int rc = zmq_setsockopt (zocket, ZMQ_LINGER, &linger, sizeof (int));
printf("errorno =%x=%d____%d\n",_errno(),errno,ETERM);
assert (rc == 0 || errno == ETERM);

the assert condition is rc and the errno,
if the ctx_terminated is true, the errno will be set to ETERM,
int zmq::socket_base_t::setsockopt (int option_, const void *optval_,
size_t optvallen_)
{
if (unlikely (ctx_terminated)) {
errno = ETERM;

    printf("setsockopt =%x=%d____%d\n",_errno(),errno,ETERM);

    return -1;
}

but, I found the _errno() has different address, so It is the reason why
errno != ETERM.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/199#issuecomment-20093330
.

[balanceren]

there is the code in my previous reply, you can test it.

if the _errno() got same address, the code is ok.

I compile the zmq to static lib and link to my app, and then the _errno() got the same address.

if I compile the zmq to dll in windows, the _errno() got different address

[hintjens]

I can't test the code, don't have a Windows box, and the problem doesn't
happen on Windows.

What I know is that on Windows, errno is per-thread; this is why _errno()
has different addresses in some cases. It means if one thread sets it,
another thread won't get the same value.

Could you try to get me the information I asked for, then I'll try to see
what might be happening.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:47 AM, balanceren notifications@github.comwrote:

there is the code in my previous reply, you can test it.

if the _errno() got same address, the code is ok.

I compile the zmq to static lib and link to my app, and then the _errno()
got the same address.

if I compile the zmq to dll in windows, the _errno() got different address

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/199#issuecomment-20172998
.

[balanceren]

the errno is per dll,
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/b4500c0d-1b69-40c7-9ef5-08da1025b5bf/setting-errno-from-within-a-dll

I suggest the zcmq use a self errno to manage the errno status.

[hintjens]

OK, thanks for explaining it. I've pushed a patch that should fix this: #202