Double Checked Locking

[Michel Fortin]

On 2011-12-17 23:10:19 +0000, Andrei Alexandrescu 
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:

> On 12/17/11 5:03 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Well, you learn something new every day I guess. I'd never even heard of
>> double-checked locking before this. I came up with it on my own in an attempt
>> to reduce how much the mutex was used. Is the problem with it that the write
>> isn't actually atomic? Wikipedia makes it sound like the problem might be that
>> the object might be partially initialized but not fully initialized, which I
>> wouldn't have thought possible, since I would have thought that the object
>> would be fully initialized and _then_ the reference would be assigned to it.
>> And it's my understanding that a pointer assignment like that would be atomic.
>> Or is there more going on than that, making it so that the assignment itself
>> really isn't atomic?
> 
> There so much going on about double-checked locking, it's not even 
> funny. Atomic assignments have the least to do with it. Check this out: 
> http://goo.gl/f0VQG

Shouldn't a properly implemented double-checked locking pattern be part 
of the standard library? This way people will have a better chance of 
not screwing up. I think the pattern is common enough to warrant it.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/