Alex Miller wrote:
Your implementation seems to be a fairly standard implementation of double checked locking, and thus is likely vulnerable to the issues outlined in C++ and the Perils of Double-Checked Locking<http://www.aristeia.com/Papers/DDJ_Jul_Aug_2004_revised.pdf> .
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:44 PM, GMan <gmannickg@gmail.com> wrote:
This suffers from the same problems as your last singleton. (Probably should have kept it in that discussion, by the way.). Also, instead of forcing people to have threaded or not, make it a policy.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Andrew Chinkoff <achinkoff@gmail.com
wrote:
Please don't top post. Refer to http://www.boost.org/community/policy.html#quoting for more information. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.