new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+// { dg-do run }
+/* Tests static constructors inside of transactional code. */
+
+#include <pthread.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+
+int f(int x) __attribute__((noinline,transaction_safe));
+int f(int x)
+{
+ static int y = x;
+ return y*x;
+}
+
+static void *thread (void *dummy __attribute__((unused)))
+{
+ int bar;
+ __transaction { bar = f(10); }
+ if (bar != 100)
+ abort();
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int main()
+{
+ int bar;
+
+ // First, initialize y in another thread.
+ pthread_t pt;
+ pthread_create(&pt, NULL, thread, NULL);
+ pthread_join(pt, NULL);
+
+ // Now y should already be initialized.
+ __transaction { bar = f(20); }
+ if (bar != 200)
+ abort();
+
+ return 0;
+}
Based on recent discussions among the C++ TM specification group, static constructors should be allowed in transactional (i.e., transaction_safe) code. GCC should have a wrapper assigment for __cxa_guard_acquire and __cxa_guard_release, and libitm should implement wrappers that guarantee atomicity of these constructors wrt the enclosing transaction. If we find out that supporting and implementing isn't feasible in practice, GCC should provide a better error message (eg, "static constructors not allowed in transactional code" instead of complaining about the __cxa* functions), and we should move this test to the GCC tests. OK for branch? commit 537788ae46aec7fcc45eee5ae56cfe3314a9ef11 Author: Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> Date: Wed Aug 3 13:31:46 2011 +0200 Test static constructors inside of transactional code. * testsuite/libitm.c++/static_ctor.C: New file.