To get a trial key
fill out the form below
Team License (standard version)
Enterprise License (extended version)
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
USD
EUR
GBP
RUB
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at


If you haven't received our response, please do the following:
check your Spam/Junk folder and click the "Not Spam" button for our message.
This way, you won't miss messages from our team in the future.

>
>
>
V1036. Potentially unsafe double-checke…
Analyzer Diagnostics
General Analysis (C++)
General Analysis (C#)
General Analysis (Java)
Diagnosis of micro-optimizations (C++)
Diagnosis of 64-bit errors (Viva64, C++)
MISRA errors
AUTOSAR errors
Additional information
Contents

V1036. Potentially unsafe double-checked locking.

Jan 09 2019

The analyzer has detected a potential error that has to do with unsafe use of the "double-checked locking" pattern. This pattern is used to reduce the overhead of acquiring a lock. First the locking criterion is checked without synchronization, and only if this criterion is met, will the thread attempt to acquire the lock. That is, locking will occur only if the check indicates that locking is required.

Consider the following example:

static std::mutex mtx;
class TestClass
{
public:
  void Initialize()
  {
    if (!initialized) 
    {
      std::lock_guard lock(mtx);
      if (!initialized) // <=
      {
        resource = new SomeType();
        initialized = true;
      }
    }
  }
  /* .... */

  private:
    bool initialized = false;
    SomeType *resource = nullptr;
  };
}

In this example, the compiler optimizes the order of assigning values to the variables 'resource' and 'initialized', which could lead to an error. That is, the 'initialized' variable will be assigned the value 'true' first and only then will the memory for an object of type 'SomeType' be allocated and the variable 'resource' initialized.

Because of this inversion, an error may occur when the object is accessed from another thread: the 'resource' variable will not be initialized yet, while the 'intialized' flag will be already set to 'true'.

One of the problems with this type of errors is that the program seems to be running correctly since the described situation will occur only every now and then, depending on the processor's architecture.

Additional links:

This diagnostic is classified as:

You can look at examples of errors detected by the V1036 diagnostic.

This website uses cookies and other technology to provide you a more personalized experience. By continuing the view of our web-pages you accept the terms of using these files. If you don't want your personal data to be processed, please, leave this site.
Learn More →
Accept