Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Thread-safe initialization of static objects
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:03:05 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <861qehggye.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <udafjf$2joeq$1@dont-email.me> <PKZPM.232647$ZXz4.71820@fx18.iad> <ueqfkl$1i6un$2@dont-email.me> <Fa5QM.124660$1B%c.102962@fx09.iad> <uerem0$1qg8s$1@dont-email.me> <ZYdQM.67167$3vM.17655@fx37.iad> <uerv9b$1tqis$1@dont-email.me> <LJoQM.19137$EIy4.5875@fx48.iad> <uetn46$2bkun$1@dont-email.me> <3bzQM.36476$q0k.14387@fx34.iad> <ueuj9u$2gdqk$3@dont-email.me> <00d0c42f-7728-4a7b-9611-3f24f98735ffn@googlegroups.com> <d1fc9003-673c-4d7b-ad17-d37a75c39bd3n@googlegroups.com> <uf3npo$3li66$1@dont-email.me> <3d9a2d52-5a7d-4a6f-b4a6-1aa98feba2e7n@googlegroups.com> <uf3siu$3me1l$1@dont-email.me> <0362fb54-0227-4cd2-8676-419a34c8fdb4n@googlegroups.com> <uf6edv$8rfg$2@dont-email.me> <e3c26612-d4dd-4428-8e56-17ce08a4da21n@googlegroups.com> <uf6f5a$8vee$1@dont-email.me> <6ba8ab42-f622-4c48-973e-8800f3f44a66n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="13636bbb038e3a1f79d11dd50eec8409"; logging-data="358958"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/u7q352ATWDA0To44WNyn29DGZn68f2DY="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ERAVkHXqEJEPoOYOh5pztvJeacM= sha1:9zaA9WQibgik0Oc3dXzxZ+Mn+jU=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:92232

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:15:57?PM UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote:
>
>> Am 29.09.2023 um 14:07 schrieb Michael S:
>>
>>> I care to assure contention.
>>
>> Foreach critical section you'd need a blocking thread and one
>> thread which holds the lock, not only three for thousands of
>> critical sections.
>
> You wanted to see code, I showed you code.  As expected, you didn't
> understand.

To me the real question is why you bother to respond
to Bonita at all, or even read his/her/its postings.
You are obviously a smart guy, I hope you have better
things to do.