Does a function local static variable automatically incur a branch? - c++

Question

For example:
int foo()
{
static int i = 0;
return i++;
}
The variable i will only be initialized to 0 the first time foo is called. Does this automatically mean there's a hidden branch in there to keep the initialization from happening more than once? Or are there more clever tricks to avoid this?

Answer 1

Yes, it must incur a branch, and it must also incur at least an atomic operation for safe concurrent initialization. The Standard requires that they are initialized on function entry, in a concurrency-safe way.
The implementation can only dodge this requirement if it can prove that the difference between lazy init and some earlier initialization like before main() is entered is equivalent. For example, simple PODs initialized from constants, the compiler may choose to initialize it earlier like a file-scope global since it's non-observable and saving the lazy initialization code, but that's a non-observable optimization.

Answer 2

Yes, there is a branch. Each time the function is entered, the code must check if the variable has already been initialized. But as will be explained below, you usually do not have to care about this branch.
Example
Check out this code:
#include <iostream>
struct Foo { Foo(){ std::cout << "FOO" << std::endl;} };
void foo(){ static Foo foo; }
int main(){ foo();}
Now, here is the first part of assembly code that gcc4.8 generates for the foo function:
_Z3foov:
.LFB974:
.cfi_startproc
.cfi_personality 0x3,__gxx_personality_v0
.cfi_lsda 0x3,.LLSDA974
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movq %rsp, %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_register 6
pushq %r12
pushq %rbx
.cfi_offset 12, -24
.cfi_offset 3, -32
movl $_ZGVZ3foovE3foo, %eax
movzbl (%rax), %eax
testb %al, %al
jne .L7 <------------------- FIRST CHECK
movl $_ZGVZ3foovE3foo, %edi
call __cxa_guard_acquire <------------------- LOCK
testl %eax, %eax
setne %al
testb %al, %al
je .L7 <------------------- SECOND CHECK
movl $0, %r12d
movl $_ZZ3foovE3foo, %edi
A you see, there is a jne! Then, a guard is aquired using __cxa_guard_acquire, followed by a je. Thus, it seems that the compiler is generating the famous double checked locking pattern here.
Will every compiler generate a branch?
I am pretty sure the spec does NOT mandate that a branch or double checked locking must be used. It just mandates that the initialization must be thread safe. However, I do not see a way to perform a thread safe initialization without a branch. Thus, even though the spec does not mandate it, it is simply not possible with current CPU architectures to omit the branch here.
Is the branch expensive?
Considering whether you should care about this branch:
You should definitly NOT care about this branch, since it will be correctly predicted (as it once the object is initialized the branch always takes the same route). Thus, the branch is almost free. Trying to avoid a static local variable for optimization purposes should never yield any observable performance benefit.
Is there really no way around the branch?
If the constructor is not observable, like simply initialization with constant values, then it may be performed eagerly at program startup and the branch is omitted. If, however, it is observable, then things get pretty tricky:
The only possibility I see is stated in the answer of R. Martinho Fernandes (which has been deleted): The code could modify itself. I.e., simply remove the initialization code once the initialization is done. However, this is idea is impractical for the following reasons:
Self-modifying code is very hard to get thread-safe.
Usually, memory flagged executable is write protected so code is not allowed to rewrite itself.
It is just not worth it, as the branch is not expensive (see above).