>We have a fair amount of code that uses non-constant function level static >variables for read-only data. Which makes little sense - it prevents the >compiler from understanding
>a) that the data is read only and can thus be put into a segment that's shared >between all invocations of the program >b) the data will be the same on every invocation, and thus from optimizing >based on that.
>The most common example of this is that all our binaries use >static struct option long_options[] = { ... }; >which prevents long_options from being put into read-only memory.
+1 static const allows the compiler to make additional optimizations.
>There are lots of places that could benefit from adding 'static >const'.
I found a few more places.
Patch 004
The opposite would also help, adding static. In these places, I believe it is safe to add static, allowing the compiler to transform into read-only, definitively.
