Andrew Fish [mailto:[email protected]] wrote:
On Aug 28, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Scott Duplichan <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Hello Deric,
You are right about the possibility of redefining STATIC. The problem with
doing so is that STATIC is used in 3 unrelated ways:
1) static functions
2) static variables declared inside of a function
Maybe we should just use static for this.
That sounds good. Because of the 3 or 4 different ways static is used in C
code, it is hard to imagine how STATIC defined to
something other than static could be useful.
3) static variables declared outside of functions
If STATIC is defined as nothing, all 3 uses have problems:
1) The few static (STATIC) functions that remain in EDK2 become public
functions and can clash with existing public functions with
the same name. Example: AllocateMemoryBelow4G() in LockBoxDxe.c becomes public
and clashes with the one in AcpiS3SaveDxe.lib.
2) Static variables declared inside a function become local variables,
something entirely different than intended. Example, line 48
of EmbeddedPkg\Ebl\HwDebug.c.
3) Static variables declared outside of functions become public, making a clash
possible.
The global variable naming convention should prevent this, if followed. Prefix
m or g on the global.
A workaround would be to make a new preprocessor macro name such as
STATIC_FUNCTION:
#if defined (WORKAROUND)
#define STATIC_FUNCTION
#else
#define STATIC_FUNCTION static
#endif
STATIC_FUNCTION void helper (void)
{
}
Workable, but pretty ugly to look at.
Maybe we should figure out if any currently supported debuggers have an issue
with static, and if they don't drop the STATIC from
the coding style requirements.
That sounds like a good approach to me.
For Xcode/clang, I know that lldb does not have any issues debugging static
functions for global variables.
That is good to hear.
Thanks,
Scott
Thanks,
Andrew Fish
Thanks,
Scott
From: Deric Cole [ <mailto:[email protected]>
mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 04:08 PM
To: <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]; Qiu, Shumin
Subject: Re: [edk2] [Patch]ShellPkg: Remove 'STATIC' from function declarations
to avoid source level debugging problem
Is this the whole point of defining "STATIC" rather than using the keyword
"static", that it can be redefined (locally) if it causes
problems like this?
From: Carsey, Jaben [ <mailto:[email protected]>
mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:11 PM
To: Qiu, Shumin
Cc: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
Subject: Re: [edk2] [Patch]ShellPkg: Remove 'STATIC' from function declarations
to avoid source level debugging problem
Reviewed-by: Jaben Carsey < <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]>
From: Qiu, Shumin
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 7:40 PM
To: Carsey, Jaben
Cc: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
Subject: [edk2][Patch]ShellPkg: Remove 'STATIC' from function declarations to
avoid source level debugging problem
Importance: High
Hi Jaben,
Can you help to review this patch? Internal linkage (ie. STATIC) functions have
caused problems with source level debugging before,
so we generally avoid STATIC in ShellPkg.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Qiu Shumin < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>
Thanks
Shumin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
<http://tv.slashdot.org/_______________________________________________>
http://tv.slashdot.org/_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/edk2-devel
