I heard that after some version of gcc using simply something like:
static A* a = new A();
return a;
Is thread-safe for a singleton and one wouldn't need something adapted from say http://locklessinc.com/articles/singleton_pattern/ anymore...
Does anyone have a specific reference or link to where I can read about this?
Section 6.7 of draft standard (n3337.pdf), point 4:
The zero-initialization (8.5) of all block-scope variables with static storage duration (3.7.1) or thread storage
duration (3.7.2) is performed before any other initialization takes place. Constant initialization (3.6.2) of a
block-scope entity with static storage duration, if applicable, is performed before its block is first entered.
An implementation is permitted to perform early initialization of other block-scope variables with static or
thread storage duration under the same conditions that an implementation is permitted to statically initialize
a variable with static or thread storage duration in namespace scope (3.6.2). Otherwise such a variable is
initialized the first time control passes through its declaration; such a variable is considered initialized upon
the completion of its initialization. If the initialization exits by throwing an exception, the initialization
is not complete, so it will be tried again the next time control enters the declaration. If control enters
the declaration concurrently while the variable is being initialized, the concurrent execution shall wait for
completion of the initialization.88 If control re-enters the declaration recursively while the variable is being
initialized, the behavior is undefined.
GCC follows the cross-vendor Itanium C++ ABI. The relevant sections covering thread-safe initialization of function-local statics are 2.8 Initialization guard variables and 3.3.2 One-time Construction API, which says:
An implementation that does not anticipate supporting multi-threading may simply check the first byte (i.e., the byte with lowest address) of that guard variable, initializing if and only if its value is zero, and then setting it to a non-zero value.
However, an implementation intending to support automatically thread-safe, one-time initialization (as opposed to requiring explicit user control for thread safety) may make use of the following API functions:
...
There were some bugs in the early GCC implementation of that API, I think they are all fixed and it works correctly from GCC version 4.3 (possibly earlier, I don't recall and can't find a reference right now.)
However, Singleton is a bad, bad pattern, do not use it!
Related
Lets say foo is called once in a program, and
void foo()
{
if(sometimes_false())
{
static int xx = func_with_sideeffect();
}
}
the condition wasn't met, is the side-effect
1. Allowed to have happened
2. Mandated to have happened (I'm guessing not if my compiler is conforming)
3. Mandated to not have happened
The non-constant initialization of all variable with local scope and static storage duration is from the point it is encountered till the end of the program. So, if the variable is not encountered because of a condition, it would not be initialized and the side effect won't happen.
The following quote from the standard supports the answer (particularly the part in bold)
6.7 Declaration statement [stmt.dcl]
The zero-initialization (8.5) of all block-scope variables with static
storage duration (3.7.1) or thread storage duration (3.7.2) is
performed before any other initialization takes place. Constant
initialization (3.6.2) of ablock-scope entity with static storage
duration, if applicable, is performed before its block is first
entered.An implementation is permitted to perform early initialization
of other block-scope variables with static orthread storage duration
under the same conditions that an implementation is permitted to
statically initializea variable with static or thread storage duration
in namespace scope (3.6.2). Otherwise such a variable is initialized
the first time control passes through its declaration; such a
variable is considered initialized upon the completion of its
initialization. If the initialization exits by throwing an exception,
the initialization is not complete, so it will be tried again the next
time control enters the declaration. If control enters the declaration
concurrently while the variable is being initialized, the concurrent
execution shall wait for completion of the initialization.88 If control
re-enters the declaration recursively while the variable is
being initialized, the behavior is undefined.
The answer is 3 but you need to think about threading.
The static int xx will be initialised by the first thread encountering that variable, and C++11 will block all other threads at that point until func_with_sideeffect() returns and the result has been assigned to xx. (That's not the case with older standards: a mutex would have been required).
It's more difficult to predict the destruction of xx if it was an instance of an object with a non-trivial destructor.
Overarching question is: how can a programmer make sure that his non-local static variables are initialized via static initialization and not via dynamic initialization?
As zero-initialization is done always then one should look at the constant initialization.
3.6.2.2 A constant initializer for an object o is an expression that is a constant expression, except that it may also invoke constexpr
constructors for o and its subobjects even if those objects are of
non-literal class types [ Note: such a class may have a non-trivial
destructor —end note ]. Constant initialization is performed:
— if each full-expression (including implicit conversions) that
appears in the initializer of a reference with static or thread
storage duration is a constant expression (5.19) and the reference is
bound to an lvalue designating an object with static storage duration
or to a temporary (see 12.2);
— if an object with static or thread storage duration is initialized
by a constructor call, and if the initialization full-expression is a
constant initializer for the object;
— if an object with static or thread storage duration is not
initialized by a constructor call and if either the object is
value-initialized or every full-expression that appears in its
initializer is a constant expression.
I omitted the reference as it is not important in my case. How I understand the standard is that there are 3 cases:
ctor
no-ctor and value initialization
no-ctor and constant expression
Let's say I have a following class:
struct X {
bool flag = false;
// = {} will break VS2013 CTP so in that case use the
// regular ctor, which sadly still can't be declared constexpr
std::aligned_storage<sizeof(int), alignof(int)>::type storage = {};
};
As far as I can say this class is perfectly valid for constant initialization (each element can be constantly initialized). Is this true?
Does this class require a constexpr constructor?
Is constant initialization guaranteed for C++11 as well as C++98?
Side question: When will the static initialization done in case of so/dll? During the load time, or it might be delayed even further?
It would be good to know the purpose behind this question. And also whether your concern is allocation or specifically initialization.
However, the type of initialization shouldn't matter because the required space is allocated at compile time. Depending on how you define the variable, it will end up either in .bss or .data section.
Initialization, as you know, is only to ensure a specific content in the memory before it is first used. If you do not define a constructor that allocates dynamic memory then there won't be any dynamic allocation (if that is your concern).
For simple constructors, I believe the compiler will generate inline code and use the same to initialize the object at compile time (I am not sure what the standard talks about the same but it is possible that it is tool chain dependent.) With complex constructors, non-local static objects will be initialized when the image is loaded in memory and local static objects will be initialized when the stack frame is loaded. In any cases you should find the object in a known state before first use.
Side question: When will the static initialization done in case of
so/dll? During the load time, or it might be delayed even further?
On Windows, static initialization occurs before before DllMain() is invoked with the DLL loader lock acquired. This severely limits what you can do in the constructors for your static objects. You can't load any other DLLs (LoadLibrary) or call any other function that MIGHT cause a DLL to be loaded, which pretty much rules out anything beyond simple initialization and functions exported by Kernel32.
See the last few paragraphs of the DllMain (MSDN) docs for details.
I have recently read Andrei Alexandrescu's Modern C++ Design. After reading 6. chapter, I begin to worry about our singletons at company. Since our experienced team leader writes core helper libraries like singletons etc... . I asked him if the way he handles singleton takes care of on dead reference problem ? If he used at_exit function call which is given by C core language?
He told me C++11 has singleton support and will execute CTORs and DTORs in a row that they will not be any dead reference problem. User will not have to cope with synchronization.
Even it sounds awesome I couldn't find any information which confirms him on internet. So please tell me if C++11 takes care of Dead Reference Problem for singletons and if so please explain a little what dark magic going behind ?
Presumably your team leader is talking about singletons implemented as follows:
T &get_value() {
static T val;
return val;
}
In this case, the standard gives two guarantees. The first is that the val objects will be constructed exactly once, the first time that the flow of program execution passes the declaration of the local static variable, even if that happens simultaneously on several threads 6.7/4:
An implementation is permitted to perform early initialization of other block-scope variables with static or thread storage duration under the same conditions that an implementation is permitted to statically initialize a variable with static or thread storage duration in namespace scope (3.6.2). Otherwise such a variable is initialized the first time control passes through its declaration; such a variable is considered initialized upon the completion of its initialization. If the initialization exits by throwing an exception, the initialization is not complete, so it will be tried again the next time control enters the declaration. If control enters the declaration concurrently while the variable is being initialized, the concurrent execution shall wait for completion of the initialization.
Static initialisation is only allowed in the case of constants, so as long as T does not have a constexpr constructor you shouldn't have to worry (but read 3.6.2 for the full rules, in case there is some edge case that is relevant to your code).
The second guarantee is that all variables with static storage duration will be destructed in the reverse order of their construction 3.6.3/1:
Destructors (12.4) for initialized objects (that is, objects whose lifetime (3.8) has begun) with static storage duration are called as a result of returning from main and as a result of calling std::exit (18.5). Destructors for initialized objects with thread storage duration within a given thread are called as a result of returning from the initial function of that thread and as a result of that thread calling std::exit. The completions of the destructors for all initialized objects with thread storage duration within that thread are sequenced before the initiation of the destructors of any object with static storage duration. If the completion of the constructor or dynamic initialization of an object with thread storage duration is sequenced before that of another, the completion of the destructor of the second is sequenced before the initiation of the destructor of the first. If the completion of the constructor or dynamic initialization of an object with static storage duration is sequenced before that of another, the completion of the destructor of the second is sequenced before the initiation of the destructor of the first. [Note: This definition permits concurrent destruction. — end note ] If an object is initialized statically, the object is destroyed in the same order as if the object was dynamically initialized. For an object of array or class type, all subobjects of that object are destroyed before any block-scope object with static storage duration initialized during the construction of the subobjects is destroyed. If the destruction of an object with static or thread storage duration exits via an exception, std::terminate is called (15.5.1).
While this paragraph gives a lot of scope for concurrent destruction of static objects when their construction was concurrent, the main thing to take away from it is that destruction happens in the reverse order of construction.
Together, these mean means that if T val depends on some U val in another of these singleton functions, the U val will always be constructed before T val and destructed after the T val, so overall, this is a safe way of implementing singletons (unless you're doing something very crazy).
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is static init thread-safe with VC2010?
I know that gcc and llvm-clang emit code to initialise local static variables in a threadsafe manner (which allows one to escape the static order initialisation fiasco by wrapping global statics in functions).
This msdn blog post, however, is the best documentation I can find of vcc's behaviour in these circumstances, and purports that static initialisation cannot ever be threadsafe, because the initialiser for a local static could recursively call into the same scope.
I don't buy this argument - it is clearly a programming error if the initialiser relies on its own result.
So, given that this article is from 2004, that gcc and clang can do it, and that the current msvc documentation is ambiguous (stating that 'assigning' to a local static isn't threadsafe, but nothing more):
Is the initialisation of local statics now threadsafe in MSVC?
If not, why not, since it is clearly possible for gcc to do this, but very difficult for the programmer to add in afterwards.
The C++0x Standard says:
§6.7 Declaration statement [stmt.dcl]
4/ The zero-initialization (8.5) of all block-scope variables with static storage duration (3.7.1) or thread storage duration (3.7.2) is performed before any other initialization takes place. Constant initialization (3.6.2) of a block-scope entity with static storage duration, if applicable, is performed before its block is first entered.
An implementation is permitted to perform early initialization of other block-scope variables with static or thread storage duration under the same conditions that an implementation is permitted to statically initialize a variable with static or thread storage duration in namespace scope (3.6.2). Otherwise such a variable is initialized the first time control passes through its declaration; such a variable is considered initialized upon the completion of its initialization.
If the initialization exits by throwing an exception, the initialization is not complete, so it will be tried again the next time control enters the declaration.
If control enters the declaration concurrently while the variable is being initialized, the concurrent execution shall wait for completion of the initialization.88
If control re-enters the declaration recursively while the variable is being initialized, the behavior is undefined.
[ Example:
int foo(int i) {
static int s = foo(2*i); // recursive call - undefined
return i+1;
}
—end example ]
88) The implementation must not introduce any deadlock around execution of the initializer.
As expected, it is quite complete.
However the fact is that even older versions of gcc already complied with this, and in fact do even better: in case of recursive initialization, an exception is thrown.
Finally, regarding a programmer adding it afterward: you can normally do it if you have something like Compare And Swap available, and use a sufficiently small variable, relying on zero-initialization of the variable to mark its non-computed state. However I do agree it's much easier if it's baked in.
I am afraid I stopped followed VC++ progresses though, so I don't know where it stands now. My only advice would be... look it up at assembly level.
I heard it is already implemented in vs2010, but can not find any reference. Anyway in c++0x standard such initializations are explicitly required to be thread-safe, so sooner or later ms would comply I guess.
I have a single instance of a simple POD
a.hpp
class A {
struct Zzz {
A* m_aPtr;
int m_val;
}
static Zzz s_zzz;
};
a.cpp
A::Zzz A::s_zzz;
I expect that both s_zzz.m_aPtr and s_zzz.m_val will be initialized to zeros before any other static initialization in any other compilation unit and it is guaranteed by the language itself. Am I right about it?
Usually I provide default constructors for the structs. Say
A::Zzz::Zzz() :
m_aPtr(0),
m_val(0)
{
}
Will it create initialization order problem or introduce compiler dependencies?
At least in C++0x, you can rely on all zero-initialization being performed before any other initialization code runs.
From the C++0x FCD, section [basic.start.init]
Variables with static storage duration
(3.7.1) or thread storage duration
(3.7.2) shall be zero-initialized
(8.5) before any other initialization
takes place.
If you're considering using this variable from other initialization code, then an explicit constructor would be a big mistake, as it would run sometime mixed in with other initialization code, and overwrite whatever changes have already been made by other initializers.
I expect that both s_zzz.m_aPtr and
s_zzz.m_val will be initialized to
zeros before any other static
initialization in any other
compilation unit and it is guaranteed
by the language itself.
It will be zero-initialized, since it's a static lifetime variable at namespace scope.
That zero-initialization happens before any dynamic initialization (an example of dynamic initializatin is when you some explicit initialization, or the class has a constructor).
The order of zero-initialization between different translation units is not defined, but there's not any way to detect it or rely on it since it happens before anything else, so it doesn't matter.
Re your point 2, it's rather unclear what you're asking about.
But for your static lifetime object, the effect is just that it's first zero-initialized, and then during dynamic initialization your constructor is used to zero it again (although the compiler might be smart enough to optimize away that redundant extra initialization).
Cheers & hth.,
ERRATA: Ben Voigt has provided a convincing example that the last paragraph above is wrong. So please disregard. The presence of the constructor means that the object can be dynamically initialized at some point before, between or after operations that change it, causing rather unpredictable results…
There are no guarantees about initialization order of statics between compilation units (see http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.14).
If it has a constructor, it will no longer be a POD, unfortunately.
Static data is always initialised to zero.
No it shouldn't introduce any initialisation problems.
When the application is loaded into memory, the static area is initialised to zero. This is before any code starts to execute.