The compiler is free to re-order the evaluation parts of an expression (assuming the meaning is unchanged).
From the original question:
a[i] = i++;
// This expression has three parts:
(a) a[i]
(b) i++
(c) Assign (b) to (a)
// (c) is guaranteed to happen after (a) and (b)
// But (a) and (b) can be done in either order.
// See n2521 Section 5.17
// (b) increments i but returns the original value.
// See n2521 Section 5.2.6
// Thus this expression can be written as:
int rhs = i++;
int lhs& = a[i];
lhs = rhs;
// or
int lhs& = a[i];
int rhs = i++;
lhs = rhs;
Double Checked locking.
And one easy mistake to make.
A* a = new A("plop");
// Looks simple enough.
// But this can be split into three parts.
(a) allocate Memory
(b) Call constructor
(c) Assign value to 'a'
// No problem here:
// The compiler is allowed to do this:
(a) allocate Memory
(c) Assign value to 'a'
(b) Call constructor.
// This is because the whole thing is between two sequence points.
// So what is the big deal.
// Simple Double checked lock. (I know there are many other problems with this).
if (a == null) // (Point B)
{
Lock lock(mutex);
if (a == null)
{
a = new A("Plop"); // (Point A).
}
}
a->doStuff();
// Think of this situation.
// Thread 1: Reaches point A. Executes (a)(c)
// Thread 1: Is about to do (b) and gets unscheduled.
// Thread 2: Reaches point B. It can now skip the if block
// Remember (c) has been done thus 'a' is not NULL.
// But the memory has not been initialized.
// Thread 2 now executes doStuff() on an uninitialized variable.
// The solution to this problem is to move the assignment of 'a'
// To the other side of the sequence point.
if (a == null) // (Point B)
{
Lock lock(mutex);
if (a == null)
{
A* tmp = new A("Plop"); // (Point A).
a = tmp;
}
}
a->doStuff();
// Of course there are still other problems because of C++ support for
// threads. But hopefully these are addresses in the next standard.
