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
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
