Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!atha!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: static globals? [addendum to previous message]
Message-ID: <1991May2.023651.7292@lsuc.on.ca>
Date: 2 May 91 02:36:51 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.183034.15773@lsuc.on.ca> <1991May1.020731.16272@wam.umd.edu>
Organization: Consultant, Toronto
Lines: 29

In article <1991May1.020731.16272@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes:
>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.
>
>Oops, I forgot one crucial point in my previous message.  If you
>declare a global variable as "static" then it will not be exported out
>of the .o file it appears in.  So static vs. auto makes a difference
>with respect to separate compilation.  The static storage class is
>very useful for avoiding name clashes between modules.

>If you're not using separate compilation; i.e., if you have one
>giant .c file or #include everything all at once, then static
>vs. auto makes little difference for globals.

     Many thanks to all who have replied to my query!  After
reading this message I remembered all about "static globals".
Ironically, I learned it years ago and forgot about it a couple
of years ago and asked exactly the same question at that time.
Then I remembered when someone else answered.  So here I am
about 2 years later asking it all over again.  Truth is, I'll
probably forget and have to ask again in another couple of years.
Gads.  No hope for me at all. :-)

-- 
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura