Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-CCodingStandardsSpecification PATCH 1/1] Prefer use of `static` C keyword over EDK2 type `STATIC`

["Oliver Smith-Denny" <osde@linux.microsoft.com>]

On 10/21/2024 12:42 PM, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 3:49 PM Rebecca Cran via groups.io
> <rebecca=bsdio.com@groups.io> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, I'll fix it.
>>
>> Could you confirm whether the change from STATIC to static is something
>> we want to go ahead with, or do we want to keep STATIC to allow
>> GoogleTest to work?
> 
> You don't need STATIC, doing stuff like -Dstatic= (or just #define
> static in C code) Just Works. For GCC at least.
> 
> proof of horribleness: https://godbolt.org/z/EvMd6hev8
> 

The issue here is that C uses one keyword for two distinct things:
file private members and local variables that keep state across calls,
i.e. real static variables.

If you only have static, then #define static <nothing>, you'll mess up
the local variable case under test.

Don't get me wrong, I think all of this tinkering is horribleness and I
think that mixing languages often brings these kind of compromises,
which is unfortunate.

I'm not advocating we introduce these kind of hacks, but I do think we
should be able to unit test static functions, so I'd like to see a
solution for that, which again, might just be CMocka.

Oliver


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#120638): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/120638
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/108941574/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-