Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: doing nasty things with internal static variables
Message-ID: <15526@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 20 Mar 91 21:30:19 GMT
References: <1991Mar19.164037.7421@intellistor.com> <1991Mar19.183920.18911@rice.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 17

In article <1991Mar19.183920.18911@rice.edu> fontenot@comet.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot) writes:
-char *foo()
-{
-  static char string[64];
-  ...
-  return(string);
-}
-I am concerned about this because though I know that that static variable
-is guaranteed to always be there for the function containing it, it is
-not really guaranteed to be there (in memory) at any other time
-(correct me if I'm wrong).

There's nothing particularly wrong with that usage.  Objects having
static storage duration exist throughout program execution.  Now, if
you had omitted the "static" storage-class specifier, the array would
have been an automatic variable, and auto storage does "evaporate"
upon leaving the block in which it is declared.