I know similar questions have been asked, but I can't point my finger on my issue. I have a class that has the following method (it is used for multi-threaded programming):
void ServerUtil::WaitForRequst(void (*ProcessRequest)(shared_ptr<TCP> tcp), shared_ptr<struct sockaddr_in> serv_addr){
TCPPort tcp_port(serv_addr, true);
struct sockaddr_in client_addr; //FIXME: add these to a vector so their is a way to track clients
int i = 0;
while(i < m_thread_max){
std::shared_ptr<TCP> tcp = std::make_shared<TCP>(serv_addr, &client_addr, tcp_port, true);
std::shared_ptr<std::thread> t = std::make_shared<std::thread>(std::bind(ProcessRequest, tcp));;
m_vector_threads.push_back(t);
i++;
}
for(int j = 0; j < m_vector_threads.size();j++)
m_vector_threads.at(j)->join();
}
}
Now I've created a server class with the following .h file:
class Server{ public:
Server(shared_ptr<ServerUtil> serv_util, shared_ptr<struct sockaddr_in> serv_addr);
virtual void ProcessCommand(char &command) = 0;
//ProcessRequest is the primary thread(client) handler
virtual void ProcessRequest(shared_ptr<TCP> tcp) = 0;
bool SendAck(shared_ptr<TCP> tcp);
bool ReceiveAck(shared_ptr<TCP> tcp);
bool CloseConnection(shared_ptr<TCP> tcp);
protected:
shared_ptr<ServerUtil> m_serv_util;
shared_ptr<struct sockaddr_in> m_serv_addr;
};
And now the following .cpp file for the issue in question:
Server::Server(shared_ptr<ServerUtil> serv_util, shared_ptr<struct sockaddr_in> serv_addr){
m_serv_util = serv_util;
m_serv_addr = serv_addr;
m_serv_util->WaitForRequst(ProcessRequest, serv_addr);
}
And I get the following error:
error: invalid use of non-static member function
m_serv_util->WaitForRequst(ProcessRequest, m_serv_addr);
I also tried commenting out the constructor in the base class and doing this in a derived class (With the pure virtual functions overwritten). Any ideas?
In
void ServerUtil::WaitForRequst(void (*ProcessRequest)(shared_ptr<TCP> tcp),
shared_ptr<struct sockaddr_in> serv_addr)
void (*ProcessRequest)(shared_ptr<TCP> tcp)
specifies that the function will be called with a pointer to a function that matches the given void (shared_ptr<TCP> tcp)
prototype.
void ProcessRequest(shared_ptr<TCP> tcp)
is a member of Server
so it really looks more like
void ProcessRequest(Server * this, shared_ptr<TCP> tcp)
You can sort-of clean that up with
void ServerUtil::WaitForRequst(void (Server::*ProcessRequest)(shared_ptr<TCP> tcp),
shared_ptr<struct sockaddr_in> serv_addr)
to let WaitForRequst
(aside: you have a typo there than may bite you later) know that it will be getting a method of Server
. But...! you will also have to pass in an object instance for this
, so
void ServerUtil::WaitForRequst(void (Server::*ProcessRequest)(shared_ptr<TCP> tcp),
Server * instance,
shared_ptr<struct sockaddr_in> serv_addr)
And this instance needs to be handed to the thread with something like
std::shared_ptr<std::thread> t = std::make_shared<std::thread>(std::bind(ProcessRequest,
instance,
tcp));
std::thread
will solve the messiness involved with invoking a method pointer for you, but if you are interested, here's a big long discussion on the trials and tribulations of method pointers: Pointers to Member Functions.
Unfortunately you are doing stuff there that I think deserves another question. You do not want those shared_ptr
s. No one is sharing the pointers, so std::unique_ptr
or no pointer at all should be the go-to. No pointer at all looks to be good here, with the possible exception of instance
(and consider a re-design if the scope of instance is unreliable or shorter than the thread).
That means
void ProcessRequest(TCP tcp)
the obligatory
void ServerUtil::WaitForRequst(void (Server::*ProcessRequest)(TCP tcp),
Server * instance,
shared_ptr<struct sockaddr_in> serv_addr)
and
m_vector_threads.emplace_back(ProcessRequest,
instance,
TCP(serv_addr,
&client_addr,
tcp_port,
true));
may be sufficient, depending on how well-written TCP
is. It might be better to pass in all of the parameters and have ProcessRequest
construct the TCP instance as a local variable. Forgive me if there is a minor syntax error in there. It's not like I have enough to test all this out. Feel free to kick my ass for major syntax errors, though.