Subj : Re: Can C++ local static objects be made thread safe?
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : David Schwartz
Date : Wed Feb 09 2005 02:21 pm


"Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <qrczak@knm.org.pl> wrote in message 
news:871xbp8noz.fsf@qrnik.zagroda...

> "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> writes:

>>     IMO, the best way to do this would be with a new language keyword. 
>> The
>> keyword should simply specify that a particular static be initialized at
>> startup, rather than lazily. This has the advantage of removing overhead
>> rather than adding it.

> You don't need a keyword for that - just move the variable outside a
> function.

    So it sounds like you're working on a non-problem.

> This has a different problem: uncertainty about relative order of
> initialization of variables from different files. Lazy initialization
> has other merits besides skipping the initialization if the variable
> is not needed at all.

    If you need precise control over when the constructor is called, it's no 
trouble to add a lock to that precise control. If you don't need precise 
control, start it before main when there's only one thread.

    It sounds like you're working on a non-problem. Most code is going to 
need to potentially modify the static object anyway. So there will have to 
be a manual lock because your automatic one will be released too early.

    DS

.