On Monday 09 June 2014 08:39:45 Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> Interesting! So on x86 and similar, they implement thread-safe Meyers
> singletons via the double-checked locking anti-pattern... Which is
> actually safe thanks to Intel's not-exactly-relaxed memory model.
Interesting indeed.
> > If g
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> I think g++ will have to be modified to allow Helgrind and DRD to
> recognize thread-safe statics on architectures that do not have relaxed
> memory consistency. From the gcc source file gcc/cp/decl.c I derived
> that on architectures wit
On 06/09/14 13:16, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Monday 09 June 2014 09:53:37 Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> If g++ would be modified such that the "if (!guard.first_byte)" test can
>> be skipped at run-time then it would become possible for Helgrind and
>> DRD to recognize static initialization by interc
On 06/08/14 19:09, David Faure wrote:
> I'm using helgrind quite a lot these days, and I love it.
>
> However I wonder if it doesn't give me false positives for the case of
> reading
> a value from a static object, which was set in the constructor.
>
> Given that gcc does indeed implement "thre
Hello,
I'm using helgrind quite a lot these days, and I love it.
However I wonder if it doesn't give me false positives for the case of reading
a value from a static object, which was set in the constructor.
Given that gcc does indeed implement "threadsafe statics" as per C++11 (but
even befor
