From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-20 11:55:26
Ken Hagan wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Ken Hagan wrote:
> > [...]
> >> 3a If we allow C<&k> [...] It is then possible to initialise static
> >> variables [...] and the results depend on the thread that ran
> >> first. Again, we have the same "problem" passing a pointer to
> >> a function, so I'm not bothered by this.
> >
> > 3b We allow C<&k> and make all its statics thread-local as well. The
> > "problem" is that, probably, it will result in an equal number of
> > somewhat irritated programmers as the 3a above.
>
> Unless you extend "its statics" to cover all static duration variables
> that might be accessed (including those accessed by called functions,
> and therefore invisible to the compiler), this is no different from 3a.
Really? Well, Peter's example (with an additional static ptr) would
surely work "different from 3a".
regards,
alexander.