Re: [boost] [any] new version

Subject: Re: [boost] [any] new version
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-06 13:41:22

Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> On 05/09/2011 20:17, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> > Really?  I didn't pay attention to ever twist or turn of the process
> > of standardizing multithreading, but it greatly surprises me to hear
> > that, because it would impose an overhead on those function-static
> > variables that don't need synchronization.  Can you cite the
> > paragraphs that give this guarantee?
> 
> It's not surprising, it's the only way to make them usable.
> GCC had already been doing this for a long time.

As you obviously didn't answer the question, you seem to be unable to cite the paragraphs at the moment.

But I'm curious. Did you actually read this in the standard yourself (and now just have problems to find the paragraphs again), or did you pick up this information indirectly (for example by browsing clang, gcc or msvc related information like bug reports or mailing lists)?

Regards,
Thomas