26 Jan
2010
26 Jan
'10
12:30 p.m.
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, 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> .
yes, the implementation is broken; see e.g. http://www.chaoticmind.net/~hcb/projects/boost.atomic/doc/atomic/usage_examp... for a correct one, using Boost.Atomic