Re: Confused about a thread-safe singleton example.

I have a C++-specific question about thread-safe singleton instances.
 There's a trivial example here:

http://www.bombaydigital.com/arenared/2005/10/25/1

That goes like this, very simple and straightforward:

static Mutex mutex; static TheClass *instance;

static TheClass * getInstance () { MutexLocker lock(mutex); if
(!instance) instance = new TheClass(); return instance; }

The example then goes on to talk about how double-check locking is
broken, etc. My question is pretty much this: Is C++ static
initialization thread-safe? If not, then how does the above example
safely use "mutex"? If so, then what is wrong with this:

static TheClass instance; // not a pointer

static TheClass * getInstance () { return &instance; // it's
correctly initialized? }

The reason I ask is I almost never see it done like that, I always
see blog entries and articles that say the same thing "store instance
in a pointer, use a mutex to protect, and p.s. double-checked locking
is broken". It seems like doing it lock-free is made out to be a hard
 problem, so *if* having a static instance works (but I don't know if
 it does, that's my question), then why doesn't anybody ever suggest
it?

Thanks! Jason