From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4374 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2005 09:07:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3971 invoked by uid 48); 18 Apr 2005 09:07:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050418090703.3970.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "adah at netstd dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040114172507.13684.evijaykumar@yahoo.com> References: <20040114172507.13684.evijaykumar@yahoo.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@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 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg02397.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-04-18 09:06 ------- Function calls, memory barriers, (and "lock" operations?) are all overheads. I would like that * GCC provide extensions so that GCC users can use memory barriers and threading calls in a platform-independent way, and * - Revert the patch, or at least - Provide a command-line option (or pragma/attribute?) to disable/enable static initialization protection. With the former, users can implement the protection as efficiently as the compiler can (correct me if I am wrong). With the latter, the new GCC is still usable in some applications that require performance no less than C. I am really worried that with the improvements introduced to GCC beginning with GCC 3, some of my applications are running slower and slower, though some problems only show up on Windows. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13684