public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "gianni at mariani dot ws" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/13684] local static object variable constructed once but ctors and dtors called multiple times on same memory when called in multiple threads
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:11:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040715051119.3730.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040114172507.13684.evijaykumar@yahoo.com>


------- Additional Comments From gianni at mariani dot ws  2004-07-15 05:11 -------

> It's not quite a one-time thing, of course: every time you run over 
> a static variable, you have to check whether it has already been  
> initialized.

I suspect that this is done with the current gcc.

> If this check has to be guarded by a lock, it gets vastly 
> more expensive than just checking for zero-or-one. 

I don't understand why you think so.

Zack's suggestion (and this concept is also used in lots of other code) is this:

  if (guard) {
    if (__cxa_guard_acquire (&guard)) {
      // construct variable.
      __cxa_guard_release (&guard)
    }
  }

The first conditional is not thread safe, however, once the object is correctly
initialized the first conditional will be false and hence it will render code
that is practically the same speed as non thread-safe code (code size will be
larger, obviously!).


 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13684


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-07-15  5:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-14 17:25 [Bug c++/13684] New: " evijaykumar at yahoo dot com
2004-01-14 17:27 ` [Bug c++/13684] " evijaykumar at yahoo dot com
2004-01-14 17:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-14 17:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-01-14 20:55 ` evijaykumar at yahoo dot com
2004-07-15  1:07 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-07-15  2:16 ` gianni at mariani dot ws
2004-07-15  2:42 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-15  5:11 ` gianni at mariani dot ws [this message]
2004-07-15 11:07 ` rmerkert at alphatech dot com
2004-07-15 13:54 ` gianni at mariani dot ws
2004-08-21  0:01 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-28  2:34 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-28 10:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-28 19:04 ` gianni at mariani dot ws
2004-08-31  6:41 ` adah at netstd dot com
2004-08-31 20:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-01 16:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-04 18:06 ` jason at redhat dot com
2004-09-05  3:19 ` adah at netstd dot com
2005-04-13 16:56 ` dhruvbird at yahoo dot com
2005-04-14  7:39 ` jason at redhat dot com
2005-04-18  9:07 ` adah at netstd dot com
2005-04-18 18:28 ` jason at redhat dot com
     [not found] <bug-13684-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-02-16 13:18 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040715051119.3730.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).