Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!agate!e260-1c.berkeley.edu!c60b-1eq
From: c60b-1eq@e260-1c.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: doing nasty things with internal static variables
Keywords: C, crossreference
Message-ID: <1991Mar20.054445.14264@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 05:44:45 GMT
References: <1991Mar19.164037.7421@intellistor.com> <1991Mar19.183920.18911@rice.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 21

In article <1991Mar19.183920.18911@rice.edu> fontenot@comet.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot) writes:
>I have found myself doing this because it works, but I am curious if it
>is a common practice or if it is highly likely to get me into trouble:
>
>char *foo()
>{
>  static char string[64];
>
>  ...
>  return(string);
>}

This is fine.  Since the area of memory occupied by the variable string
is guaranteed not to be touched, you can assume that string will have
the same value until it is directly modified.  I, in fact, use this
construct all the time.  It is extremely convenient.

===============================================================
Noam Mendelson                       | "I haven't lost my mind,
c60b-1eq@web.Berkeley.EDU            |  it's backed up on tape
University of California at Berkeley |  somewhere."