NHacker Next
login
▲C++: zero-cost static initializationcofault.com
46 points by oecumena 4 days ago | 10 comments
Loading comments...
ot 6 hours ago [-]
That's a nice trick, but contrary to function statics, it is susceptible to SIOF. This kind of optimization is useful only on extraordinarily hot paths, so I wouldn't generally recommend it.

> On ARM, such atomic load incurs a memory barrier---a fairly expensive operation.

Not quite, it is just a load-acquire, which is almost as cheap as a normal load. And on x86 there's no difference.

One thing where both GCC and Clang seem to be quite bad at is code layout: even in the example in the article, the slow path is largely inlined. It would be much better to have just a load, a compare, and a jump to the slow path in a cold section. In my experience, in some rare cases reimplementing the lazy initialization explicitly (especially when it's possible to use a sentinel value, thus doing a single load for both value and guard) did produce a noticeable win.

naruhodo 60 minutes ago [-]
The rabbit hole I just went down is called C/C++ Statement Expressions [1] which are a GCC extension:

    #define FAST_STATIC(T) \
      *({ \
          \                                // statements separated by semicolons
          reinterpret_cast<T *>(ph.buf); \ // the value of the macro as a statement
       })
The reinterpret_cast<T*>(...) statement is a conventional C++ Expression Statement, but when enclosed in ({}), GCC considers the whole kit and kaboodle a Statement Expression that propagates a value.

There is no C equivalent, but in in C++, since C++11 you can achieve the same effect with lambdas:

    auto value = [](){ return 12345; }();
As noted in the linked SO discussion, this is analogous to a JS Immediately-Invoked Function Expression (IIFE).

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76890861/what-is-called-...

foota 5 hours ago [-]
Funny enough I recently wrote my own hack using this linker feature in C, to implement an array of static counter definitions that can be declared anywhere and then written out (e.g., to prometheus) in one place.

Note that as I later found out, this doesn't work with Mac OS's linker, so you need to use some separate incantations for Mac OS.

haberman 5 hours ago [-]
I wrote a portable abstraction for this that works across Linux, MacOS, and Windows: https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/blob/4917ec250d3...

I call them "linker arrays". They are great when you need to globally register a set of things and the order between them isn't significant.

rockwotj 5 hours ago [-]
Looks similar to absl::NoDestructor

https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/blob/master/absl/base/n...

Which is basically the only usage of std::launder I have seen

jandrewrogers 3 hours ago [-]
std::launder should probably be used more than it is in low-level code if you care about correctness, even though it doesn’t always bite you in the ass. It is a logical no-op. std::launder is a hint to the compiler to forget everything it thinks it knows about the type instance, sort of like marking it “volatile” only for a specific moment in time.

The use of std::launder should be more common than it is, I’ve seen a few bugs in optimized builds when not used, but compilers have been somewhat forgiving about not using it in places you should because it hasn’t always existed. Rigorous code should be using it instead of relying on the leniency of the compiler.

In database engine code it definitely gets used in the storage layers.

TuxSH 6 hours ago [-]
TIL about encapsulation symbols.

Why not just use constinit (iff applicable), construct_at, or lessen the cost with -fno-threadsafe-statics?

pbsd 6 hours ago [-]
>Even after the static variable has been initialised, the overhead of accessing it is still considerable: a function call to __cxa_guard_acquire(), plus atomic_load_explicit(&__b_guard, memory_order::acquire) in __cxa_guard_acquire().

No. The lock calls are only done during initialization, in case two threads run the initialization concurrently while the guard variable is 0. Once the variable is initialized, this will always be skipped by "je .L3".

forrestthewoods 6 hours ago [-]
> For this we need a certain old, but little-known feature of UNIX linkers

STOP WRITING NON-PORTABLE CODE YOU BASTARDS.

The correct answer is, as always, “stop using mutable global variables you bastard”.

Signed: someone who is endlessly annoyed with people who incorrectly think Unix is the only platform their code will run on. Write standard C/C++ that doesn’t rely on obscure tricks. Your co-workers will hate you less.

spauldo 41 minutes ago [-]
I tell my coworkers, "Hey, we need this coded up as a Windows service!" and I get crickets.

So I spin up a Debian VM and POSIX the hell out of it. If they dare to complain, I tell 'em to do their damn jobs and not leave all the hard stuff to the guy that only programs on UNIX.