Subj : Re: Can C++ local static objects be made thread safe?
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : David Schwartz
Date : Mon Mar 07 2005 09:29 am


"Giancarlo Niccolai" <gniccolai@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:95e4efda.0503070402.2dae4316@posting.google.com...

> Now, this problem is of a comparable class of the problem at C-14, but
> this time the ABI specifies the ROUTINES that must be used to solve
> the problem. Now, probably it doesn't explicitly say that this locking
> MUST always be enforced by the compiler, but if you read the relative
> summary (which is the premise to resolution) you understand that "to
> stick with C++ standard" it is NECESSARY to prevent concurrent access
> to initializers by the means of their resolution.

    Surely you agree that it is necessary to prevent concurrent access to 
initializers *somehow*.

> That is, on ABI
> opinion, NOT using their routines in MT does not break ABI; it breaks
> C++. That's my reading, at least, and ABI is seemingly doing all to
> encourage this reading.

    Which is entirely reasonable, assuming we're not talking about code that 
conforms to POSIX.

> But, the thing about ERRNO and MALLOC has been said NOT by G++
> developers, but by Marcin Kowalsky (a poster here) that as soon as he
> read about you posting the bug file, run to back up the poor G++
> developers and help their reasons. You've been talking mostly with
> him, as Pinski seem to be the only G++ developer that replied and he
> just said "I don't care, I am right, ABI says it, so take it and hit
> the road [bug close/wontfix]"

    I just hope this isn't indicative of their general level of 
understanding of threads.

    DS

.