Static keyword in an array function parameter declaration - c

Question

Here is the explanation of what it means 6.7.6.3/7:
If the keyword static also appears within the [ and ] of the array
type derivation, then for each call to the function, the value of the
corresponding actual argument shall provide access to the first
element of an array with at least as many elements as specified by the
size expression.
It is not quite clear what it means. I ran the following example:
main.c
#include "func.h"
int main(void){
char test[4] = "123";
printf("%c\n", test_func(2, test));
}
And 2 different implementations of the test_func:
static version
func.h
char test_func(size_t idx, const char[const static 4]);
func.c
char test_func(size_t idx, const char arr[const static 4]){
return arr[idx];
}
non-static version
func.h
char test_func(size_t idx, const char[const 4]);
func.c
char test_func(size_t idx, const char arr[const 4]){
return arr[idx];
}
I checked the assembly code compiled with gcc 7.4.0 -O3 of the function in both of the cases and it turned out to be completely identical:
Disassembly of the functions
(gdb) disas main
sub rsp,0x18
mov edi,0x2
lea rsi,[rsp+0x4]
mov DWORD PTR [rsp+0x4],0x333231
mov rax,QWORD PTR fs:0x28
mov QWORD PTR [rsp+0x8],rax
xor eax,eax
call 0x740 <test_func>
[...]
(gdb) disas test_func
movzx eax,BYTE PTR [rsi+rdi*1]
ret
Can you give an example where the static keyword gives some benefits (or any differences at all) comparing to non-static counterpart?

Answer 1

Here is an example where static actually makes a difference:
unsigned foo(unsigned a[2])
{
return a[0] ? a[0] * a[1] : 0;
}
clang (for x86-64, with -O3) compiles this to
foo:
mov eax, dword ptr [rdi]
test eax, eax
je .LBB0_1
imul eax, dword ptr [rdi + 4]
ret
.LBB0_1:
xor eax, eax
ret
But after replacing the function parameter with unsigned a[static 2], the result is simply
foo:
mov eax, dword ptr [rdi + 4]
imul eax, dword ptr [rdi]
ret
The conditional branch is not necessary because a[0] * a[1] evaluates to the correct result whether a[0] is zero or not. But without the static keyword, the compiler cannot assume that a[1] can be accessed, and thus has to check a[0].
Currently only clang does this optimization; ICC and gcc produce the same code in both cases.

Answer 2

This isn't used much by compilers in my experience, but one use is that the compiler can assume that the (array decayed into pointer) parameter is not NULL.
Given this function, both gcc and clang (x86) produce identical machine code at -O3:
int func (int a[2])
{
if(a)
return 1;
return 0;
}
Disassembly:
func:
xor eax, eax
test rdi, rdi
setne al
ret
When changing the parameter to int a[static 2], gcc gives the same output as before, but clang does a better job:
func:
mov eax, 1
ret
Since clang realizes that a can never be NULL, so it can skip the check.