Re: Functional Local Static Zero Initialization - When?
On Dec 5, 3:23 am, "jason.cipri...@gmail.com"
<jason.cipri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 4:22 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:38 am, Brian Cole <col...@gmail.com> wrote:
A working draft of theC++standard I was able to obtain says
the following in section 6.7.4:
The zero-initialization(8.5) of alllocalobjects withstatic
storage duration (3.7.1) orthreadstorage duration (3.7.2) is
performed before any otherinitializationtakes place.
First, the only addition for C++0x is thethreadstorage
duration, so I assume the sentence was the following for
previous versions of the standard:
The zero-initialization(8.5) of alllocalobjects withstatic
storage duration (3.7.1) is performed before any other
initializationtakes place.
The criteria "before any otherinitialization" is a little
ambiguous here. Does this mean any otherinitializationinside
thefunctionthestaticresides, or any otherinitialization
the entire program may perform.
I don't see any ambiguity. "Before any otherinitialization"
means "before any otherinitialization".
Of course, if the compiler can determine that a conformant
program cannot see the difference... I rather suspect that no
implementation actually initializes thethreadlocalstorage
before thethreadusing it is created.
Basically, I'm trying to implement something like the
following to allow forthreadsafefunctionlocalstatic
initializationwhile maintaining proper destructor ordering
atexit.
template<class T>
struct Once
{
T *_obj;
long _once;
Once()
{
while (1)
{
long prev = InterlockedCompareExchange(&_once, 1, 0);
if (0 == prev) // got the lock
break;
else if (2 == prev) // The singleton has been initial=
ized.
return _obj;
else {
// Anotherthreadis initializing the singleton: must w=
ait.
assert(1 == prev);
sleep(1); // sleep 1 millisecond
That's one second, not one millisecond. At least on Posix
platforms, and I'm pretty sure Windows as well. (There is no
C++standardfunctionsleep.)
There is no "sleep" on Windows. If he meant "Sleep", then it's 1
millisecond (well, more like 50 or so, realistically, depending on the
platform).
}
}
assert(_obj == 0);
_obj = new T;
InterlockedExchange(&_once, 2);
return _obj;
}
~Once() { delete _obj; }
inline T& operator *() { return *_obj; }
inline T* operator ->() { return _obj; }
inline operator T* () { return operator ->(); }
};
If I can guarantee that the memory of the object is
zero-initialized during "staticinitialization",
It will be if the object hasstaticstorage duration. Otherwise
not.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.ka...@g=
mail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter D=
atenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
I did mean millisecond sleep. The code originally called an internal
cross-platform millisecond sleep function. I changed it to just
"sleep" so that everyone else knew the jist of what was going on
there. In fact, there's probably better things to do instead of
"sleep", exponential back-off and such, but this condition is so
rarely encountered it doesn't seem to warrant anything complex.
Thanks for being meticulous though. :-)