doing nasty things with internal static variables

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <1991Mar19.183920.18911 at rice.edu> fontenot at comet.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot) writes:
-char *foo()
-{
-  static char string[64];
-  ...
-  return(string);
-}
-I am concerned about this because though I know that that static variable
-is guaranteed to always be there for the function containing it, it is
-not really guaranteed to be there (in memory) at any other time
-(correct me if I'm wrong).

There's nothing particularly wrong with that usage.  Objects having
static storage duration exist throughout program execution.  Now, if
you had omitted the "static" storage-class specifier, the array would
have been an automatic variable, and auto storage does "evaporate"
upon leaving the block in which it is declared.