Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #4614

Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix"

Path csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date Tue, 03 May 2011 07:39:39 -0500
From Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com>
Organization Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Date Tue, 3 May 2011 08:39:39 -0400
Message-ID <2011050308393971813-pete@versatilecodingcom> (permalink)
References <78f3178b-efdc-4af5-8f84-7ff6fa995af7@e25g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <2011042613500411162-pete@versatilecodingcom> <ipkt23$2sj$1@news.albasani.net> <428ddf1c-7074-4117-ae13-6d427cbe2ec4@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 8bit
Subject Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix"
User-Agent Unison/2.1.4
Lines 33
X-Usenet-Provider http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace sv3-yCwK2zGhk1YvP5MNNxZzzXcsyf3+3fQ302WtR+S/KbPiQaN+u81CvMAYcn0X3h8v0JOj8oomfKMPsQ9!LQ8grAiXb1QN+M3D+55aXSdW+6OExVdzvSgXZBCw2b4crIMYKM1MwB9ilPqHZgbEOrP84pFd
X-Complaints-To abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes 2587
Xref x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c++:4614

Show key headers only | View raw

On 2011-05-02 18:59:49 -0400, Joshua Maurice said:

> 
> What does change is when we throw std::atomic into the mix. When
> pinstance is of type std::atomic, the following:
>   pinstance = new Singleton;
> is equivalent to the following ala operator overloading pseudo-code
> (forgive me for not knowing the specific function name offhand):
>   pinstance.set(new Singleton);

Let me say that more strongly. std::atomic<Singleton*> is a template 
instantiation. It has an assignment operator that takes an argument of 
type Singleton*. So in this code:

std::atomic<Singleton*> pinstance;
pinstance = new Singleton;

the assignment is implemented as a function call. All of the side 
effects of evaluating the argument to the function call happen before 
the call to the function, so the memory barrier that the assignment 
establishes ensures that all of the side effects will be visible to 
other threads before the assignment is visible.

That guarantee, though, depends on both the definition of the atomic 
template and the new guarantees that compilers can't reorder 
instructions across atomic operations.

-- 
  Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The 
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference 
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" jl_post@hotmail.com - 2011-04-26 09:58 -0700
  Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-26 18:17 +0100
  Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-04-26 13:50 -0400
    Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Scott Meyers <NeverRead@aristeia.com> - 2011-05-01 17:14 -0700
      Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-02 15:59 -0700
        Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-05-03 08:39 -0400
  Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-26 11:16 -0700
    Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-26 11:19 -0700
    Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-04-26 14:30 -0400
      Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-26 11:50 -0700
    Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-11 19:55 -0700
      Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Gerhard Fiedler <gelists@gmail.com> - 2011-05-13 19:56 -0300
        Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-13 16:59 -0700
          Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Gerhard Fiedler <gelists@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 18:12 -0300
            Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 14:53 -0700
              Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Gerhard Fiedler <gelists@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 13:46 -0300
                Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 15:30 -0700
                Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Gerhard Fiedler <gelists@gmail.com> - 2011-05-21 11:55 -0300
                Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 01:08 -0700
  Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-04-30 15:54 -0700
    Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-01 21:49 +0100
      Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2011-05-01 17:26 -0400
        Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-01 22:44 +0100
          Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-02 01:01 +0100
            Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2011-05-01 22:04 -0400
            Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" "Chris M. Thomasson" <cristom@charter.net> - 2011-05-04 11:49 -0700
              Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2011-05-06 00:16 -0400
          Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-02 15:43 -0700
        Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-01 14:53 -0700
          Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2011-05-01 19:23 -0400
            Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-02 09:02 -0700
              Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2011-05-05 23:46 -0400
      Re: Please disprove this Double-Checked Locking "fix" James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-01 14:47 -0700

csiph-web