Re: [boost] [proposal] Atomically Thread-Safe Static InitializationFor Boost...

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-03 03:04:55

Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 2) I have tried to find out if it is possible to implement a mutex
>     that is statically initializeable with the additional constraint
>     that zero initialization suffices.
>     I have provided a prototype that let me believe it really can be
>     done. (Such a mutex has the additional benefit that you need no
>     explicit memory management.)

boost/thread/win32/basic_timed_mutex.hpp on the thread-rewrite branch provides
a win32-specific statically-initializable-with-zero mutex (that I use as the
basis for boost::mutex on win32). The thing is, it does require initialization
when used with non-static storage duration.

If the constexpr proposal gets accepted into the C++ Standard, we won't have
to worry about this in the future --- constructors that just use constant
expressions can be tagged "constexpr", and used for static initialization.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Software Developer
Just Software Solutions Ltd
http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk