Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!dmb
From: dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: static globals?
Message-ID: <1991May1.020025.15963@wam.umd.edu>
Date: 1 May 91 02:00:25 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.183034.15773@lsuc.on.ca>
Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET Posting)
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Lines: 12
Nntp-Posting-Host: cscwam

In article <1991Apr30.183034.15773@lsuc.on.ca> jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes:
>     I've never seen this type of declaration before.  Why would you
>bother to declare a "global" as a "static"?  Is there any point to
>it?  It doesn't seem to be a problem for the compilers to handle.

Technically, only static variables are guaranteed to be automatically
initialized to zeros.  Also, I think that only _static_ globals can be
given initializers, although most compilers seem to accept initialized
auto globals as well.  That may be an extension, however.

Dave Baggett
dmb%wam.umd.edu@uunet.uunet.net