That's a very weird comment, your spreading your knowledge and not really addresse what could have been changed in the article.

If I follow your comment, you mean that he could have use a non-static global variable instead and avoid mentioning "static" keyword afterward?

▲

unwind 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Oh! Thanks, I was not being as concrete as I imagined. Sorry.

Yes, the `static` can simply be dropped, it does no additional work for a single-file snippet like this.

I tried diving into Compiler Explorer to examine this, and it actually produces slightly different code for the with/without `static` cases, but it was confusing to deeply understand quickly enough to use the output here. Sorry.

▲

mananaysiempre 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I see exactly the same assembly from x86-64 GCC 15.2 with -O2 the first example in the article both as is and without `static`, which makes sense. The two do differ if you add -fPIC, as though you’re compiling a dynamic library, and do not add -fvisibility=hidden at the same time, but that’s because Linux dynamic linking is badly designed.

▲

Chabsff 7 hours ago | parent [-]

TU-level concepts (mostly) dissolve during the linking stage. You need to compile with -c to generate an object file in order to see the distinction.

Also, the difference manifests in the symbols table, not the assembly.

	▲	mananaysiempre 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To clarify, I was talking about Compiler Explorer-cleaned disassembly, same as the comment I was replying to.

▲

8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]