>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: boost-bounces@[...].org
>  [mailto:boost-bounces@[...].org]On Behalf Of Eric Niebler
>  Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 11:15 AM
>  To: boost@[...].org
>  Subject: [boost] Re: Thread lib (good reason for static)

[snip]
>  >  
>  > That's what the double-checked locking pattern for 
>  singletons is for.
>  > 
>  > Regards,
>  >  
>  > Matt Hurd.
>  
>  
>  No, the double-checked locking pattern is only good as the subject of 
>  talks describing why it's not good for anything.
>  
>  http://www.nwcpp.org/Downloads/2004/DCLP_notes.pdf
>  

Yeah! Of course I have to admit I'd never heard of
DCLP before ;-)

Read the notes quickly and they are very nicely presented.

The actual bug that I created was related to the mutex
controlling instantiation. Essentially if there is a
multi-access issue around instantiation, how does adding
a mutex make it better, i.e. how does the mutex get
constructed (safely)?

In the notes this is the following line on page 8. I'm
assuming "args" is a constructed mutex;

Lock L( args);	// Acquire mutex or other lock

While this is becoming something of a tangent maybe
it qualifies as an example of why globals creating
threads in ctors is a bear?

Cheers,
Scott

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost