Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:34:52 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Pierre Beyssac <pb@fasterix.freenix.org> Cc: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heads up: static -ification Message-ID: <19980209223452.41056@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <19980209210343.OU10756@@>; from Pierre Beyssac on Mon, Feb 09, 1998 at 09:03:44PM %2B0100 References: <19980209064733.56080@follo.net> <19980209210343.OU10756@@>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 09, 1998 at 09:03:44PM +0100, Pierre Beyssac wrote: > Eivind Eklund writes: > > I'm just about to commit a change that staticize close to everything that > > can be staticized and doesn't look unreasonable to staticize (almost 400 > > variables and functions). > > Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale for this? Smaller stack > footprint? Faster access to said variables? There are a multitude of reasons; I'll list some of them: * The namespace was badly managed. E.g, a single driver had taken the global name 'devfs_token'. * Localization of state - to allow the programmer to see that his changes don't affect anything beyond that file. * Localization of state - to let the compiler do better optimizing. * Detection of unused variables. * Data hiding - this make better module boundaries, and make more certain that incestous relationships don't develop. It will make it easier to change the code later. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980209223452.41056>