I am trying to improve my code that involves a thread (threadA) handling some UDP communication and another thread (threadB) that works with the output of that communication.

My basic idea is to .push() new data into a std::queue within threadA. threadB is looking for new data periodically - if it gets new data it processes it. Then .pop is called and the data is deleted.


  1. threadA will call addNewElement() any time new UDP data arrives.

  2. threadB will call getNewestPtr() to access the data.

  3. when done with the data, threadB will call doneWithNewest().

I am managing the access to the data (which comes in the form of std::array) through the use of std::shared_ptr. I know that the shared_ptr will manage the access to the pointer in a thread safe manner, but the underlying object is not going to be managed. Here lies my problem - in my implementation of the class, I am not sure where to put in memory locks, to ensure thread safety. My implementation already works, I have been testing it for a few days without problems, but I have the feeling I am doing something wrong, as I have not used any std::mutex. Anyway, here is my code:



#include <queue>
#include <array>
#include <memory>

const size_t COMMLENGTH = 56;

 * @brief The commbufferfifo class
 * @details used to safely share data between the comm thread and the visu thread
class commbufferfifo

     * @brief getNewestPtr  only accessed in visu thread
     * @return returns nullptr if fifo is empty!
    std::shared_ptr<std::array<int16_t, COMMLENGTH>> getNewestPtr();///< @brief

    void doneWithNewest();///< @brief call when newest object can be deleted

    void addNewElement(const std::array<int16_t, COMMLENGTH> &commBuffer);  ///< @brief only accessed in comm thread

    std::queue<std::shared_ptr<std::array<int16_t, COMMLENGTH>>> m_fifo;



#include "commbufferfifo.h"



std::shared_ptr<std::array<int16_t, COMMLENGTH> > commbufferfifo::getNewestPtr()
    if (m_fifo.empty())
        return nullptr;
        return m_fifo.front();

void commbufferfifo::doneWithNewest()
    if (m_fifo.empty())

void commbufferfifo::addNewElement(const std::array<int16_t, COMMLENGTH> &commBuffer)
    m_fifo.push(std::make_shared<std::array<int16_t, COMMLENGTH>>(commBuffer));

some pseudo usage: main.cpp

#include "includes/commbufferfifo.h"

#include <unistd.h>

void threadA(std::shared_ptr<commbufferfifo> myPointer){
    std::array<int16_t, COMMLENGTH> arr;
    for (int iteration = 0; iteration < 1000; iteration++){
        arr.at(0) = iteration;

int main()
    auto sharedFifo = std::make_shared<commbufferfifo>();
    std::thread tA(&threadA, sharedFifo);

        if (sharedFifo->getNewestPtr() == nullptr)
        std::cout << "sharedFifo->getNewestPtr()->at(0) = " << sharedFifo->getNewestPtr()->at(0) << "\n";   //use data
        sharedFifo->doneWithNewest();                                                                       //data will be deleted


    std::cout << "------------------------------------\n";
    std::cout << "done" << std::endl;
    return 0;

This is more of a stackoverflow question but whatever.

  1. There is no guarantee that std::queue is thread safe and methods empty()/front()/push() will properly interact in a multi-threaded environment. They most certainly cause data races. For this reason you need to use std::mutex to ensure that std::queue isn't accessed simultaneously from multiple threads ensuring that the data is read/written correctly.

  2. What are you going to do when the queue is empty? What if you want to wait for next element? Will you put sleep(10ms) periodically? What if it isn't responsive enough and has too big of a lag? The proper method is to utilize std::condition_variable which has proper wait/notify methods.

  3. It isn't worth to create a shared pointer to view some 100 bytes. You'd better transfer 100 bytes of data by copying it.

  4. This isn't a C++ approach to transfer data by simply copying chunks of bytes. What you should do instead is to template your thread-safe queue over some class T so it moves T's instances from sender to receiver in a safe way.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.