Re: Singleton_pattern and Thread Safety
On 10/12/2010 15:29, James Kanze wrote:
On Dec 10, 1:16 pm, Leigh Johnston<le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/12/2010 09:52, James Kanze wrote:
On Dec 9, 5:05 pm, Marcel M ller<news.5.ma...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
Pallav singh wrote:
[...]
Note that the above still risks order of destruction issues;
it's more common to not destruct the singleton ever, with
something like:
namespace {
Singleton* ourInstance =&Singleton::instance();
Singleton&
Singleton::instance()
{
if (ourInstance == NULL)
ourInstance = new Singleton;
return *ourInstance;
}
}
(This solves both problems at once: initializing the variable
with a call to Singleton::instance and ensuring that the
singleton is never destructed.)
James "Cowboy" Kanze's OO designs includes objects that are never
destructed but leak instead?
And where do you see a leak?
Is that a serious question?
The only real difference between the two programs below is the amount of
memory leaked:
int main()
{
int* p = new int;
}
int main()
{
int* p = new int;
p = new int;
}
A singular memory leak (one that is not repeated so doesn't consume more
and more memory as a program runs) is still a memory leak.
I will ignore the predictable, trollish part of your reply.
/Leigh