«

I'm working with a code (not mine) on embedded MIPS platform and ran across
a weird behavior. I have a function:

int nvram_init(void *si)
{
static int nvram_status = -1;
...
}

This function gets called only at one place of the firmware, what really
strange is that output value of 'nvram_status' at the very beginning of the
'nvram_init()' is always 0.

As per my knowledge, a variable declared 'static' withing a function's body
must maintain it value between the function's calls, but it doesn't seem to
be the case here! Should I be looking for some hardware/compiler specific
trick, or I'm missing something more trivial?

--
Mark

On 12/28/10 02:57 PM, Mark wrote:
> I'm working with a code (not mine) on embedded MIPS platform and ran
> across a weird behavior. I have a function:
>
> int nvram_init(void *si)
> {
> static int nvram_status = -1;
> ...
> }
>
> This function gets called only at one place of the firmware, what really
> strange is that output value of 'nvram_status' at the very beginning of
> the 'nvram_init()' is always 0.

Two questions, what do you mean by "at the very beginning" and how do
you know?

> As per my knowledge, a variable declared 'static' withing a function's
> body must maintain it value between the function's calls, but it doesn't
> seem to be the case here! Should I be looking for some hardware/compiler
> specific trick, or I'm missing something more trivial?

It should.

--
Ian Collins

On 12/27/2010 8:57 PM, Mark wrote:
> I'm working with a code (not mine) on embedded MIPS platform and ran
> across a weird behavior. I have a function:
>
> int nvram_init(void *si)
> {
> static int nvram_status = -1;
> ...
> }
>
> This function gets called only at one place of the firmware, what really
> strange is that output value of 'nvram_status' at the very beginning of
> the 'nvram_init()' is always 0.

How do you know this? (See below.)

> As per my knowledge, a variable declared 'static' withing a function's
> body must maintain it value between the function's calls, but it doesn't
> seem to be the case here! Should I be looking for some hardware/compiler
> specific trick, or I'm missing something more trivial?

Yes, a `static' variable retains its last-stored[*] value from
one function call to the next, or more generally from one assignment
to the next. If there has been no assignment, the `static' variable
holds it initialization value, or "the right kind of zero" if there
is no initializer. Based on what you've shown, `nvram_status' should
have the value minus one the first time nvram_init() is called. I
therefore suspect that you have not shown everything that's relevant.
In particular, you haven't shown how you determine the original value
of `nvram_status' -- and it's possible that the determination itself
might be at fault.
[*] For a `volatile' variable, "last-stored" might not be a visible
action of the program: a hardware clock or some such might "store" a
new value in the variable without an explicit assignment by the program.
However, `nvram_status' is not `volatile', so we need not consider that
potential complication.


--
Eric Sosman
lid

Eric Sosman wrote:
> Yes, a `static' variable retains its last-stored[*] value from
> one function call to the next, or more generally from one assignment
> to the next. If there has been no assignment, the `static' variable
> holds it initialization value, or "the right kind of zero" if there
> is no initializer. Based on what you've shown, `nvram_status' should
> have the value minus one the first time nvram_init() is called. I
> therefore suspect that you have not shown everything that's relevant.
> In particular, you haven't shown how you determine the original value
> of `nvram_status' -- and it's possible that the determination itself
> might be at fault.

I print the value of 'nvram_status', below is more complete snippet:

int nvram_init (void *si)
{
int ret;
static int nvram_status = -1;

printf("%s : nvram_status=%d\n", __FUNCTION__, nvram_status); /* my
line */

if (nvram_status == 1) /* the very first statement in the original code
*/
return 1;

/* low-level initializations of NVRAM */
/* nvram_status can be altered down here */
...
}

>[*] For a `volatile' variable, "last-stored" might not be a
> visible action of the program: a hardware clock or some such might
> "store" a new value in the variable without an explicit assignment by
> the program. However, `nvram_status' is not `volatile', so we need
> not consider that potential complication.


--
Mark

Ian Collins wrote:
>> This function gets called only at one place of the firmware, what
>> really strange is that output value of 'nvram_status' at the very
>> beginning of the 'nvram_init()' is always 0.
>
> Two questions, what do you mean by "at the very beginning" and how do
> you know?

See my reply to Eric Sosman.

--
Mark

On 12/28/10 03:24 PM, Mark wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>> Yes, a `static' variable retains its last-stored[*] value from
>> one function call to the next, or more generally from one assignment
>> to the next. If there has been no assignment, the `static' variable
>> holds it initialization value, or "the right kind of zero" if there
>> is no initializer. Based on what you've shown, `nvram_status' should
>> have the value minus one the first time nvram_init() is called. I
>> therefore suspect that you have not shown everything that's relevant.
>> In particular, you haven't shown how you determine the original value
>> of `nvram_status' -- and it's possible that the determination itself
>> might be at fault.
>
> I print the value of 'nvram_status', below is more complete snippet:
>
> int nvram_init (void *si)
> {
> int ret;
> static int nvram_status = -1;
>
> printf("%s : nvram_status=%d\n", __FUNCTION__, nvram_status); /* my line */
>
> if (nvram_status == 1) /* the very first statement in the original code */
> return 1;

Why do you set the value to -1 and test for 1?

--
Ian Collins

Ian Collins wrote:
>> int nvram_init (void *si)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> static int nvram_status = -1;
>>
>> printf("%s : nvram_status=%d\n", __FUNCTION__, nvram_status); /* my
>> line */
>>
>> if (nvram_status == 1) /* the very first statement in the original
>> code */ return 1;
>
> Why do you set the value to -1 and test for 1?

I don't; as I mentioned earlier this is not my code.

--
Mark

On 12/27/2010 9:24 PM, Mark wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>> Yes, a `static' variable retains its last-stored[*] value from
>> one function call to the next, or more generally from one assignment
>> to the next. If there has been no assignment, the `static' variable
>> holds it initialization value, or "the right kind of zero" if there
>> is no initializer. Based on what you've shown, `nvram_status' should
>> have the value minus one the first time nvram_init() is called. I
>> therefore suspect that you have not shown everything that's relevant.
>> In particular, you haven't shown how you determine the original value
>> of `nvram_status' -- and it's possible that the determination itself
>> might be at fault.
>
> I print the value of 'nvram_status', below is more complete snippet:
>
> int nvram_init (void *si)
> {
> int ret;
> static int nvram_status = -1;
>
> printf("%s : nvram_status=%d\n", __FUNCTION__, nvram_status); /* my line */
>
> if (nvram_status == 1) /* the very first statement in the original code */
> return 1;
>
> /* low-level initializations of NVRAM */
> /* nvram_status can be altered down here */
> ...
> }

It seems you like to dispense information drop by precious drop,
one tiny tidbit at a time. If the information is so very private that
you dare not share it except in meaningless driblets -- well, I have
never been known as a patient man, and I think I've got better things
to do than spend time wheedling details from a coy Twenty Questions
player.

If and when you want help from me, provide sufficient information
to get my analysis started. Until then, I've got more pressing matters
to attend to -- it's been *ages* since I last plucked my eyebrows.

--
Eric Sosman
lid

On Dec 28, 7:24*am, "Mark" <mark_cruzNOTFORS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
> > * * Yes, a `static' variable retains its last-stored[*] value from
> > one function call to the next, or more generally from one assignment
> > to the next. *If there has been no assignment, the `static' variable
> > holds it initialization value, or "the right kind of zero" if there
> > is no initializer. *Based on what you've shown, `nvram_status' should
> > have the value minus one the first time nvram_init() is called. *I
> > therefore suspect that you have not shown everything that's relevant.
> > In particular, you haven't shown how you determine the original value
> > of `nvram_status' -- and it's possible that the determination itself
> > might be at fault.
>
> I print the value of 'nvram_status', below is more complete snippet:
>
> int nvram_init (void *si)
> {
> * * int ret;
> * * static int nvram_status = -1;
>
> * * printf("%s : nvram_status=%d\n", __FUNCTION__, nvram_status); */* my
> line */
>
> * * if (nvram_status == 1) */* the very first statement in the original code
> */
> * * * * return 1;
>
> * * /* low-level initializations of NVRAM */
> * * /* nvram_status can be altered down here */
> * * ...
>
> }
> > * *[*] For a `volatile' variable, "last-stored" might not be a
> > visible action of the program: a hardware clock or some such might
> > "store" a new value in the variable without an explicit assignment by
> > the program. However, `nvram_status' is not `volatile', so we need
> > not consider that potential complication.
>
> --
> Mark

I tried the same program i got -1 as output for all try. i have seen
no weird behavior.

nvram_init : nvram_status=-1
nvram_init : nvram_status=-1
nvram_init : nvram_status=-1
nvram_init : nvram_status=-1
nvram_init : nvram_status=-1
nvram_init : nvram_status=-1
nvram_init : nvram_status=-1
nvram_init : nvram_status=-1
nvram_init : nvram_status=-1
nvram_init : nvram_status=-1

Mark you can give some more information like compiler and may be
optimization that you are trying So that some people can better
analyze the problem

Eric Sosman wrote:
> It seems you like to dispense information drop by precious drop,
> one tiny tidbit at a time. If the information is so very private that
> you dare not share it except in meaningless driblets -- well, I have
> never been known as a patient man, and I think I've got better things
> to do than spend time wheedling details from a coy Twenty Questions
> player.


Appreciate your delightful sense of humour, it indeed cheered me up. The
information isn't private at all, at first I thought the function is pretty
lengthy to be posted here, therefore I provided just a snippet as you asked.
I've posted the source of the routine under question at
http://clc.pastebin.com/f4FRqgit

--
Mark