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

["Pedro Falcato" <pedro.falcato@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 9:05 PM Oliver Smith-Denny
<osde@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

That's an interesting problem, but I'm afraid the current EDK2 coding
style would recommend STATIC for local variables too.

https://tianocore-docs.github.io/edk2-CCodingStandardsSpecification/release-2.20/5_source_files/56_declarations_and_types.html#56-declarations-and-types
says:

5.6.1.2 The use of int, unsigned, char, void, static, long is a
violation of the coding convention.

so:

INT Foo()
{
    STATIC INT Variable = 0;
    return Variable++;
}

would be the sanctioned way to pull off this kind of stuff. So STATIC
gains us nothing (neither does INT, LONG, CHAR, VOID, or CONST).

-- 
Pedro


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#120639): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/120639
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-