On Saturday 27 August 2011 23:44:02 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I want to use double checked initialization for a program, but I'm
> catching some warnings from helgrind. A typical use is shown below.
> 
> Its kind of tedious to run --gen-suppressions=yes for to develop
> suppressions. Plus, the suppression rules are only applicable to the
> current name mangling scheme.
> 
> Is there a helgrind friendly way to write the initialization so that I
> don't get a warning?

Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-checked_locking I'd think that the 
warnings are valid - no? Only MSVC apparently interpretes volatile in a way 
that would make this a safe pattern in C++.

Can you explain why you think it's safe to use anyways, i.e. why you want to 
ignore the warnings?

Thanks
-- 
Milian Wolff
m...@milianw.de
http://milianw.de

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K
The only unified storage solution that offers unified management 
Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. 
Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Valgrind-users mailing list
Valgrind-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users

Reply via email to