From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-20 11:55:26
Ken Hagan wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Ken Hagan wrote:
> > [...]
> >> 3a If we allow C<&k> [...] It is then possible to initialise static
> >> variables [...] and the results depend on the thread that ran
> >> first. Again, we have the same "problem" passing a pointer to
> >> a function, so I'm not bothered by this.
> > 3b We allow C<&k> and make all its statics thread-local as well. The
> > "problem" is that, probably, it will result in an equal number of
> > somewhat irritated programmers as the 3a above.
> Unless you extend "its statics" to cover all static duration variables
> that might be accessed (including those accessed by called functions,
> and therefore invisible to the compiler), this is no different from 3a.
Really? Well, Peter's example (with an additional static ptr) would
surely work "different from 3a".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk