OpenMP Segmentation Fault in C++

Question

I have a very straightforward function that counts how many inner entries of an N by N 2D matrix (represented by a pointer arr) is below a certain threshold, and updates a counter below_threshold that is passed by reference:

void count(float *arr, const int N, const float threshold, int &below_threshold) { below_threshold = 0; // make sure it is reset bool comparison; float temp; #pragma omp parallel for shared(arr, N, threshold) private(temp, comparison) reduction(+:below_threshold) for (int i = 1; i < N-1; i++) // count only the inner N-2 rows { for (int j = 1; j < N-1; j++) // count only the inner N-2 columns { temp = *(arr + i*N + j); comparison = (temp < threshold); below_threshold += comparison; } } }

When I do not use OpenMP, it runs fine (thus, the allocation and initialization were done correctly already).

When I use OpenMP with an N that is less than around 40000, it runs fine.

However, once I start using a larger N with OpenMP, it keeps giving me a segmentation fault (I am currently testing with N = 50000 and would like to eventually get it up to ~100000).

Is there something wrong with this at a software level?

P.S. The allocation was done dynamically ( float *arr = new float [N*N] ), and here is the code used to randomly initialize the entire matrix, which didn't have any issues with OpenMP with large N:

void initialize(float *arr, const int N) { #pragma omp parallel for for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) { for (int j = 0; j < N; j++) { *(arr + i*N + j) = static_cast <float> (rand()) / static_cast <float> (RAND_MAX); } } }

UPDATE:

I have tried changing i, j, and N to long long int, and it still has not fixed my segmentation fault. If this was the issue, why has it already worked without OpenMP? It is only once I add #pragma omp ... that it fails.

In good C++, please don't use new? Use std::vector or std:array instead. That might even have caught this error because may very well be allocating with a negative size. PS C++ also has a better random number generator than what you're using, which additionally can be used thread-safe. — Victor Eijkhout
– Victor Eijkhout, Commented Mar 2, 2022 at 14:56
@VictorEijkhout Is std::vector and std::array guaranteed to be memory contiguous? — 5Pack
– 5Pack, Commented Mar 2, 2022 at 15:14
Yes, contiguous, if you don't make a vector<vector<double>>. An array<array<double>> is going to be contiguous. I think. — Victor Eijkhout
– Victor Eijkhout, Commented Mar 2, 2022 at 15:18

j23 · Accepted Answer · 2022-03-02 15:00:36Z

3

I think, it is because, your value (50000*50000 = 2500000000) reached above INT_MAX (2147483647) in c++. As a result, the array access behaviour will be undefined.

So, you should use UINT_MAX or some other types that suits with your usecase.

edited Mar 2, 2022 at 15:00

answered Mar 2, 2022 at 14:48

j23

3,5431 gold badge8 silver badges15 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

3 Comments

paleonix Over a year ago

You should rather use long int or std::int64_t. unsigned will fail for N=100000, while a signed 64 bit integer will work.

Homer512 Over a year ago

std::ptrdiff_t is the type you are looking for. Signed (not all OpenMP implementations work with unsigned types in their loops), and not unnecessarily large on 32 bit systems. Also long int on Windows is 32 bit so that wouldn't work.

5Pack Over a year ago

@paleonix This doesn't fix my segmentation fault...

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

OpenMP Segmentation Fault in C++

1 Answer 1

3 Comments

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

3 Comments

Linked

Related