Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6851303
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 27, 20262026-05-27T01:13:54+00:00 2026-05-27T01:13:54+00:00

By using a volatile boolean that is read only if the instance is null,

  • 0

By using a volatile boolean that is read only if the instance is null, can I avoid the default/frequent volatile read once the instance is initailized like so? Havent seen anyone recommend double checked locking like this, but seems to avoid volatile reads once fully initialized…

public class Singleton {

   private static volatile boolean initialized = false;
   private static Object lock = new Object();
   private static Singleton instance;

      public static Singleton getInstance(){
           if(instance != null) return instance;
           if(!initialized){
                synchronized(lock){
                   if(!initialized){
                       instance = new Singleton();
                       initialized = true;
                   }
                }
           }
           return instance;

       }

}

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-27T01:13:55+00:00Added an answer on May 27, 2026 at 1:13 am

    No, you cannot. If thread A has reached the synchronized block and is executing the

    instance = new Singleton();
    

    line, a thread B entering your function could see instance as initialized before thread A has finished constructing the object. So you risk having thread B try to work on a partially constructed object.

    See the DLCP article for variations and explanations on this pattern.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I heard that volatile nature of a variable can be removed using const_cast operator.
I have a problem using DatagramSocket. The problem is that I can't run two
Possible Duplicate: Is volatile expensive? I heard that using volatile variable in multithreaded application
I recently asked a question on using volatile and was directed to read some
Recently, I came across a volatile flag technique, which I may avoid from using
I understand the volatile keyword in Java can make the read/write operations of reference
The following code using System.Threading; class Test { volatile int counter = 0; public
Using PyObjC , you can use Python to write Cocoa applications for OS X.
Using ASP.NET MVC there are situations (such as form submission) that may require a
Using TortoiseSVN against VisualSVN I delete a source file that I should not have

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.