Re: [Valgrind-users] Uninitialized access findings on non-static file scope variables that's been initialized?

[Jeffrey W. <nol...@gm...>]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Bart Van Assche <bva...@ac...> wrote:
> On 08/12/15 22:18, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>
>> Its *really* pathetic the C++ language lacks a mechanism for me to say
>> "Object 1 depends upon String 1, 2, 3", and "Object 2 depends upon
>> Object 1 and String 1, 2, 3".
>
>
> What's wrong with the singleton pattern ? When using the singleton pattern
> non-circular dependencies are resolved at runtime without having to specify
> the dependencies explicitly to the compiler.
>
I could be wrong, but I think its the wrong tool for the job.

I don't have an issue with a mutithreaded program racing to create a
single object at runtime. Rather, its startup code executed at load
time, which I believe is guaranteed to be single threaded (or thread
safe). So the only problem that needs to be solved is the order in
which they are initialized.

Jeff