> From: Peter Dimov [mailto:pdimov@mmltd.net]
> Sent: 06 August 2002 15:17
> From: "Anthony Williams" <anthwil@nortelnetworks.com>
> > > From: Peter Dimov [mailto:pdimov@mmltd.net]
> > > Sent: 06 August 2002 14:21
> >
> > > From: "Pete Becker" <petebecker@acm.org>
> > > > In C++ we have automatic initialization of static objects,
> > > so there is
> > > even
> > > > less need for once functions.
> > >
> > > We have dynamic initialization of static mutex objects, but
> > > we do not have
> > > static initialization of mutex objects. Hello
> initialization order.
> >
> > On POSIX, you can statically initialize a mutex, as mutexes are POD.
> >
> > On Windows, mutexes are always dynamically initialized.
> However, you can
> > ensure they are only initialized once by using named mutexes.
> >
> > I am sure that other platforms have ways of achieving the same aim.
>
> Yes. I was talking about the Boost.Threads platform.

So with Boost.Threads, you only have dynamic mutex initialization (with init order problems), despite the fact that two of the three (I don't know anything about MacOS) supported platforms have a mechanism for avoiding init order problems with Mutexes?

Anthony