Subj : Re: Boost.Threads on its way to C++0x
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : gottlobfrege
Date : Thu Apr 28 2005 10:54 pm


Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
> > gottlobfrege@gmail.com wrote:
> >> - a static_local template:
> >>
> >> int func()
> >> {
> >>   // this thread-safely inits foo only once
> >>   static static_local<Foo> foo(foo_param1, foo_param2,...);
> >
> > How do you solve the race condition WRT the hidden
compiler-generated
> > boolean flag?
>
> You fix it in at the language level.  Hans Boehm reported that
> "[t]here appeared to be consensus among those attending the last C++
> standards meeting that both [synchronised and unsychronised] options
> should be provided to the programmer"
> <http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/c++mm/mm.html>.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Horngren's Observation:
>                    Among economists, the real world is often a
special case.

Yes, it should definitely be optional - you don't want the overhead for
all the cases where you know it is not needed.  One of C++'s mantras I
believe...

.