------- Additional Comments From qrczak at knm dot org dot pl 2005-02-24 21:06 ------- > First, if we're talking about pthreads programs, which is the only case I'm > suggesting removing the locking for, then those programs are already broken.
They are non-portable no matter how static initializers are done: C++ doesn't include threads and POSIX doesn't include C++. > If GCC/G++ are going to have non-portable features that make code work > when they're enabled and break when they're disabled, they definitely > should not be on by default. Taking portability aside (as they are already non-portable), this is a wonderful quote when taken out of context. Yeah, if an option makes more code working and its negation makes more code break, let's make the breaking variant the default :-) > (Or are you seriously arguing that the C++ standard and the > POSIX standard *require* this behavior?) Of course not. Not yet anyhow. For me static locals in C++ are the equivalent of pthread_once in C/POSIX. A hypothetical C++/POSIX should make them MT-safe. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20099
