Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!unisoft!hoptoad!academ!killer!jfh
From: jfh@killer.UUCP (John Haugh)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: static variables
Message-ID: <972@killer.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jun-87 12:31:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: killer.972
Posted: Mon Jun  8 12:31:06 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jun-87 01:46:52 EDT
References: <7653@brl-adm.ARPA>
Organization: The Unix(tm) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 35
Summary: No, the pointer is automatic.

In article <7653@brl-adm.ARPA>, jfjr@mitre-bedford.arpa asks:
> 
> Are character strings local to a function static??
> 
> given this
> 
> int do_something()
> {
>  char * some_string = "some string"
>  do_things;
>  return(some_int);
> }
> 
> is some_string static??
> 
>                                        Jerry Freedman,Jr

No, the default class in a function is automatic.  The string that is
used, "some string", I guess could be considered static since its life
isn't only during function execution.  However, the storage for some_string
is undefined after do_something returns.

[ Lots of garbage to get around 50% rule ... ]

I wouldn't call this a "truly" static or "truly" automatic storage
situation.  You could return (some_string) if the return type was
char pointer, and things would be fine (as opposed to if "some string"
was in a character array that was automatic).  But returning (&some_string)
would be a no-no, where if some_string _were_ static you would be able
to return its address without causing trouble.

- John.

Disclaimer:
	No disclaimer.  Whatcha gona do, sue me?