Notifications
Mark all as read
Q&A

Static and thread_local initialization order

+4
−0

Is there any guarantee regarding initialization of static and thread_local objects? In example, is there any guarantee about the value printed by the following program?

#include<iostream>
static int a=3;
thread_local int b=a;
int main(void) {
    std::cout << b << std::endl;
}

For threads other than the 1st one surely thread_local objects will be initialized after statics(*). But does the C++ standard provide any guarantee that thread_local objects will be initialized after static objects for the 1st thread?

(*) Unless the thread is started from the constructor of a global/static object. But not going there.

Why should this post be closed?

0 comments

1 answer

+3
−0

TL;DR

The initialization of the variables a and b in your question are indeterminately sequenced in relation to each other. The initialization order is not guaranteed between them.


The initialization rules of C++ are quite complex, especially past C++11. The relevant part would be C++11 3.6.2, "Initialization of non-local variables" which speaks of zero initialization, then constant initialization. The formal terms are defined as

Together, zero-initialization and constant initialization are called static initialization; all other initialization is dynamic initialization.

Your specific case sorts under dynamic initialization, even if the storage duration of the objects are static/thread storage. Static storage variables have the following rules, emphasis mine:

Dynamic initialization of a non-local variable with static storage duration is either ordered or unordered. Definitions of explicitly specialized class template static data members have ordered initialization. Other class template static data members (i.e., implicitly or explicitly instantiated specializations) have unordered initialization. Other non-local variables with static storage duration have ordered initialization. Variables with ordered initialization defined within a single translation unit shall be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit.

Regarding thread storage, the same section continues, emphasis mine:

If a program starts a thread (30.3), the subsequent initialization of a variable is unsequenced with respect to the initialization of a variable defined in a different translation unit. Otherwise, the initialization of a variable is indeterminately sequenced with respect to the initialization of a variable defined in a different translation unit. If a program starts a thread, the subsequent unordered initialization of a variable is unsequenced with respect to every other dynamic initialization. Otherwise, the unordered initialization of a variable is indeterminately sequenced with respect to every other dynamic initialization.

1 comment

Disclaimer: I'm not a C++ guru and various subtle crap changed from C++11 and beyond. I think I got the C++11 standard right and also that this part holds true for any version >= C++11. Lundin‭ 8 days ago

Sign up to answer this question »