Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:43:15 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: OLPC: speed up device tree creation during boot (v2) |
| |
On 11/14/2010 11:02 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > >> What? What is wrong with static variables in functions? It really doesn't seem >> to be a good idea to make them file-scope if they don't need to be. > > They are very easy to overlook and mix up with regular stack variables and i've seen > (and introduced myself) a number of bugs due to them. > > They also often are used in buggy ways (with SMP not taken into consideration), so > overlooking them during review compounds their negative effects. Putting them in > front of the function isnt a big deal in exchange. > > There are people who never overlook them (like yourself), but my brain is wired up > differently. >
However, I have to vehemently object to putting them in a wider scope than is otherwise necessary. I agree that static variables should be used sparsely if at all (there really are vary few uses of them that are valid), but putting them in a larger scope screams "I'm used in more than one function", and that is *not* a good thing.
-hpa
-- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
| |