On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 8:30 PM Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 8/20/22 19:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 4:45 PM Matti Vaittinen > > <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 8/20/22 14:21, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:19:17 +0300 > >>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > >>> For the whole static / vs non static. My personal preference is not > >>> to have the static marking but I don't care that much. > >> > >> I'd like to stick with the static here. I know this one particular array > >> does not have much of a footprint - but I'd like to encourage the habit > >> of considering the memory usage. This discussion serves as an example of > >> how unknown the impact of making const data static is. I didn't know > >> this myself until Sebastian educated me :) Hence my strong preference > >> on keeping this 'static' as an example for others who are as ignorant as > >> I were ;) After all, having const data arrays static is quite an easy > >> way of improving things - and it really does matter when there is many > >> of arrays - or when they contain large data. > > > > But still the same comment about global scope of the variable is applied. > > I don't understand why you keep claiming the variable is global when it > is not? It is. The static keyword makes it global, but putting the entire definition into the function is asking for troubles. I guess some C standard chapter describes that in non-understandable language. > > As I explained before, hiding global variables inside a function is a > > bad code practice. > > I don't really get what you mean here. And I definitely don't see any > improvement if we would really use a global variable instead of a local one. The improvement is avoid hiding the global variable to the local namespace. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
