Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!sri-spam!robert
From: robert@sri-spam.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: default initialization of static and extern
Message-ID: <10314@sri-spam.istc.sri.com>
Date: Wed, 3-Jun-87 18:32:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-spam.10314
Posted: Wed Jun  3 18:32:19 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jun-87 04:13:46 EDT
References: <158@delftcc.UUCP> <1070@viper.Lynx.MN.ORG> <1297@genrad.UUCP> <675@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU>
Reply-To: robert@sri-spam.UUCP (Robert Allen)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park
Lines: 27
Keywords: C, NULL, portability

In article <675@gargoyle.UChicago.EDU> mason@gargoyle.uchicago.edu.UUCP (Tony Mason) writes:
>In article <1297@genrad.UUCP> rep@genrad.UUCP (Pete Peterson) writes:
>>K&R claims (in at least 3 places) that externs and statics are
>>guaranteed to be initialized to zero...
>
>							..........  I have
>never seen any other compiler that didn't conform to this convention, but it
>is best never to assume anything.
>
	This may be a small point, but I always "assume" that static
	variables local to a function are initialized to zero, and maintain
	their value over time and function calls.  If this not the case,
	how can one effectively determine what to initialize to?  If you
	init explictly then it will be done each time you call the function,
	so the routine isn't static.  Am I missing something?  Does C provide
	that an "initialization when declaration" in a function only occurs
	once?

	Anything less than 'assuming 0' just isn't correct C in my book.
	(and in K&R's to boot! :-) )
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
Who? Me?

Robert Allen,
robert@spam.istc.sri.com
---------------------------------------------------------