---
title: std::call_once bug in Visual Studio 2012/2013
layout: post
excerpt: >
In this post, I will describe a neat bug I've stumbled upon in C++ Standard
Library implementation shipped with Microsoft Visual Studio 2012/2013.
custom_css:
- syntax.css
---
### Abstract
In this post, I will describe a neat bug I've stumbled upon in C++ Standard
Library implementation shipped with Microsoft Visual Studio 2012/2013.
### License
Distributed under the MIT License.
See [LICENSE.txt] for details.
[LICENSE.txt]: {{ site.github.repository_url }}/blob/gh-pages/LICENSE.txt
Introduction
------------
I've recently come across a nasty standard library bug in the implementation
shipped with Microsoft Visual Studio 2012/2013.
[StackOverflow was of no help], so I had to somehow report the bug to the
maintainers.
Oddly enough, Visual Studio's [Connect page] wouldn't let me to report one,
complaining that I supposedly had no right to do so, even though I was logged
in from my work account, associated with my Visual Studio 2013 installation.
Fortunately, I've come across the personal website of this amazing guy,
[Stephan T. Lavavej], who appears to be the chief maintainer of Microsoft's
standard library implementation.
He seems to be your go-to guy when it comes to obvious standard library
misbehaviours.
[StackOverflow was of no help]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26477070/concurrent-stdcall-once-calls
[Connect page]: https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio
[Stephan T. Lavavej]: http://nuwen.net/stl.html
C++11 and singletons
--------------------
Anyway, the story begins with me trying to implement the singleton pattern
using C++11 facilities like this:
{% highlight c++ %}
#include <mutex>
template <typename DerivedT>
class Singleton
{
public:
static DerivedT& get_instance()
{
std::call_once(initialized_flag, &initialize_instance);
return DerivedT::get_instance_unsafe();
}
protected:
Singleton() = default;
~Singleton() = default;
static DerivedT& get_instance_unsafe()
{
static DerivedT instance;
return instance;
}
private:
static void initialize_instance()
{
DerivedT::get_instance_unsafe();
}
static std::once_flag initialized_flag;
Singleton(const Singleton&) = delete;
Singleton& operator=(const Singleton&) = delete;
};
template <typename DerivedT>
std::once_flag Singleton<DerivedT>::initialized_flag;
{% endhighlight %}
Neat, huh?
Now other classes can inherit from `Singleton`, implementing the singleton
pattern effortlessly:
{% highlight c++ %}
class Logger : public Singleton<Logger>
{
private:
Logger() = default;
~Logger() = default;
friend class Singleton<Logger>;
};
{% endhighlight %}
Note that the [N2660] standard proposal isn't/wasn't implemented in the
compilers shipped with Visual Studio 2012/2013.
If it was, I wouldn't, of course, need to employ this `std::call_once`
trickery, and the implementation would be much simpler, i.e. something like
this:
{% highlight c++ %}
class Logger
{
public:
static Logger& get_instance()
{
static Logger instance;
return instance;
}
private:
Logger() = default;
~Logger() = default;
};
{% endhighlight %}
<div class="alert alert-info">
<p>The point is that the <code>Logger::get_instance</code> routine above wasn't
thread-safe until C++11.
Imagine what might happen if <code>Logger</code>s constructor takes some time
to initialize the instance.
If a couple of threads then call <code>get_instance</code>, the first thread
might begin the initialization process, making the other thread believe that
the instance has already been intialized.
This other thread might then return a reference to the instance which hasn't
completed its initialization and is most likely unsafe to use.</p>
<p>Since C++11 includes the proposal mentioned above, this routine would indeed
be thread-safe in C++11.
Unfortunately, the compilers shipped with Visual Studio 2012/2013 don't/didn't
implement this particular proposal, which caused me to turn my eyes to
<code>std::call_once</code>, which seems to implement exactly what I
needed.</p>
</div>
[N2660]: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2660.htm
The Bug
-------
Unfortunately, matters became a bit more complicated when I tried to have two
singleton classes.
I had `Logger`, like in the example above, and some kind of a "master"
singleton (let's call it `Duke`).
These two classes both inherited from `Singleton`, which I thought was nice.
`Duke`s constructor was heavy and complicated and definetely required some
logging to be done.
OK, I thought, I will simply call `Logger::get_instance` inside `Duke`s
constructor, and everything would be fine.
{% highlight c++ %}
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
class Logger : public Singleton<Logger>
{
public:
Logger& operator<<(const char* msg)
{
// Actual logging is stripped for brevity
return *this;
}
private:
Logger()
{
// Opening log files, etc.
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds{3});
}
~Logger() = default;
friend class Singleton<Logger>;
};
class Duke : public Singleton<Duke>
{
private:
Duke()
{
Logger::get_instance() << "started Duke's initialization";
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds{10});
Logger::get_instance() << "finishing Duke's initialization";
}
~Duke() = default;
friend class Singleton<Duke>;
};
{% endhighlight %}
What would happen if I had two threads, one to do something with the `Duke`
instance, and the other to do something else, logging in process?
Like this:
{% highlight c++ %}
#include <ctime>
#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
#include <thread>
namespace
{
void entered(const char* f)
{
std::ostringstream oss;
std::time_t tt = std::time(NULL);
oss << "Entered " << f << " at " << std::ctime(&tt);
std::cout << oss.str();
}
void exiting(const char* f)
{
std::ostringstream oss;
std::time_t tt = std::time(NULL);
oss << "Exiting " << f << " at " << std::ctime(&tt);
std::cout << oss.str();
}
void get_logger()
{
entered(__FUNCTION__);
Logger::get_instance() << "got the Logger instance";
exiting(__FUNCTION__);
}
void get_duke()
{
entered(__FUNCTION__);
Duke::get_instance();
exiting(__FUNCTION__);
}
}
int main()
{
std::thread t1(&get_duke);
std::thread t2(&get_logger);
t1.join();
t2.join();
return 0;
}
{% endhighlight %}
The first thread is supposed to have to total running time of about 13 seconds,
right?
Three seconds to initialize the `Logger` instance and ten to initialize the
`Duke` instance.
The second thread, similarly, is supposed to be executed in about 3 seconds
required for `Logger` initialization.
Weirdly, this program produces the following output when compiled using Visual
Studio 2013's compiler:
Entered `anonymous-namespace'::get_duke at Fri Jul 03 02:26:16 2015
Entered `anonymous-namespace'::get_logger at Fri Jul 03 02:26:16 2015
Exiting `anonymous-namespace'::get_duke at Fri Jul 03 02:26:29 2015
Exiting `anonymous-namespace'::get_logger at Fri Jul 03 02:26:29 2015
Isn't it wrong that the second thread actually took the same 13 seconds as the
first thread?
Better check with some other compiler in case it was me who made the mistake.
Unfortunately, the program behaves as expected when compiled using GCC's
compiler:
Entered get_logger at Fri Jul 3 02:27:12 2015
Entered get_duke at Fri Jul 3 02:27:12 2015
Exiting get_logger at Fri Jul 3 02:27:15 2015
Exiting get_duke at Fri Jul 3 02:27:25 2015
So it appears that the implementation of `std::call_once` shipped with Visual
Studio 2012/2013 relies on some kind of a global lock, which causes even the
simple example above to misbehave.
The [complete code] sample to demonstrate the misbehaviour described above can
be found in the blog's repository.
[complete code]: {{ site.github.repository_url }}/tree/gh-pages/src/posts/std_call_once_bug_in_visual_studio_2012_2013
Resolution
----------
So, since I couldn't submit the bug via Visual Studio's [Connect page], I wrote
to Mr. Lavavej directly, not hoping for an answer.
Amazingly, it took him less than a day to reply.
He told me he was planning to overhaul `std::call_once` for Visual Studio 2015.
Meanwhile, I had to stick to something else; I think I either dropped logging
from `Duke`s constructor or initialized all the singleton instances manually
upon program's startup.
In a few months, Mr. Lavavej replied to me (that's professionalism and
responsibility I lack) and wrote that the bug has been fixed in Visual Studio
2015 RTM.
Kudos to the amazing guy!
