[RESOLVED] local static variables and thread safety

Hello.

I need some quick help here: Are local static variables thread-safe?

I'm thinking about something like this:

Code:

---

MyClass& MyClass::GetInst()
{
      static MyClass myObj;
      return myObj;
}

---

Is it ok?

in c++03 no, it isn't
in c++0x yes, it is ( threads entering concurrently in GetInst will wait for the initialization of myObj to complete )
in VC++2010, AFAIK no, it isn't, being not implemented yet
in latest gcc, I don't know; anybody ?

So, the c++ standard says nothing about thread-safety of local static variables?

>> So, the c++ standard says nothing about thread-safety of local static variables?

>> in c++03 no

>> in c++11 yes
They are thread-safe in the latest standard.

gg

And what about the static data members?
I suppose, but I'm not 100% sure, that they're ok. Am I right?

And, is there a workaround to making a class singletone besides using pointers?
ie besides this:

Code:

---

class MyClass
{
    MyClass* m_pInst;
  ....
};

MyClass* MyClass::GetInst()
{
      if (!m_pInst) m_pInst = new MyClass;
      return m_pInst;
}

---

Static data members are initialized the same as a variable at global scope. This occurs before main() and before any threads are created.

gg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feoggou

And, is there a workaround to making a class singletone besides using pointers?

---

"workaround" usually implies a problem. What is the problem with a pointer?

If what you want is for the instance to be in the static section, you can always do this:

Code:

---

class MyClass
{
private:
  static MyClass m_gInst;
public:
  static MyClass& GetInst()
  {return MyClass::m_gInst;}
};

//Inside cpp
MyClass MyClass::m_gInst;

---

This requires greedy initialization, but is thread safe.

*OR*


[EDIT]ON SECOND THOUGHT: DON'T DO THIS. See Codeplug's post for why.[/EDIT]
Another alternative to to declare a table to house the instance of your class, and merely construct it on demand. This requires an external static/extern though, given the use of the "sizeof" operator. It also needs a helper "instanciated" bool:

Code:

---

class MyClassHelper;
class MyClass
{
private:
  static bool instanciated;
public:
  static MyClass& GetInst();
};

class MyClassHelper
{
  friend class MyClass;
  static char m_gInst[sizeof(MyClass)];
};

MyClass& MyClass::GetInst()
{
  if(MyClass::instanciated == false)
  {
    new (MyClassHelper::m_gInst) MyClass;
    MyClass::instanciated = true;
  }
  return * reinterpret_cast<MyClass*>(MyClassHelper::m_gInst);
}

//in cpp
bool MyClass::instanciated = false;
char MyClassHelper::m_gInst[sizeof(MyClass)];

---

Note that this is just as thread-unsafe as any other classic singleton though.

>> static char m_gInst[sizeof(MyClass)];
This does not guarantee proper alignment. http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/028.htm

gg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monarch_dodra

[EDIT]ON SECOND THOUGHT: DON'T DO THIS. See Codeplug's post for why.[/EDIT]

---

as a side note, you can use boost optional ( or in some situations boost variant ) to defer construction of stack variables without worrying of alignment issues:

Code:

---

boost::optional<MyClass> x;

// ...

if( !x ) x = boost::in_place( <<MyClass's ctor args>> );

---

thanks for your help guys.