Is this enumeration construct and assignment allowed? - c

Question

Will this compile and work as meant under Linux GCC ?
In the LoRa Gateway Stack hosted at Github I found the following construct in loragw_hal.h
enum lgw_radio_type_e {
LGW_RADIO_TYPE_NONE,
LGW_RADIO_TYPE_SX1255,
LGW_RADIO_TYPE_SX1257
};
#define LGW_RF_CHAIN_NB 2 /* number of RF chains */
and then in loragw_hal.c
static enum lgw_radio_type_e rf_radio_type[LGW_RF_CHAIN_NB];
edit: the array is not initialized at any place in the code
and then in the function
setup_sx125x(uint8_t rf_chain, uint32_t freq_hz)
the following switch statement is used to select the rf chain according to the rf_chain argument
switch (rf_radio_type[rf_chain]) {
case LGW_RADIO_TYPE_SX1255:
// some code
break;
case LGW_RADIO_TYPE_SX1257:
// some code
break;
default:
DEBUG_PRINTF("ERROR: UNEXPECTED VALUE %d FOR RADIO TYPE\n",
rf_radio_type[rf_chain]);
break;
}
rf_chain argument is set to 1, when the function is called, and it selects the default Error 'unexpected rf chain' of course.
The copyright holder Semtech Inc. support, points always to this code, if you have any problems with their product, as reference.
But I have the feeling that this code wouldn't run anyway without any modifications.
So my question to the forum here is, aside from that this construct above makes not really sense, is that not a faulty construct anyway ?
Will this compile and work as meant under Linux GCC ?
I try to use this code under GCC ARM and it does NOT work as it seems to be planned.

Answer 1

You seem to be trying to draw attention to this:
enum lgw_radio_type_e {
LGW_RADIO_TYPE_NONE,
LGW_RADIO_TYPE_SX1255,
LGW_RADIO_TYPE_SX1257
};
#define LGW_RF_CHAIN_NB 2 /* number of RF chains */
[...]
static enum lgw_radio_type_e rf_radio_type[LGW_RF_CHAIN_NB];
[...] the array is not initialized at any place in the code
It is not a particular problem that the array is not explicitly initialized. File-scope variables (and static block-scope variables) are subject to default initialization if no explicit initializer is provided. In this case, the array declaration is equivalent to
static enum lgw_radio_type_e rf_radio_type[2] = {
LGW_RADIO_TYPE_NONE, LGW_RADIO_TYPE_NONE
};
That seems to be quite sensible in itself.
You go on to say,
[...] when the function is called, and it selects the default Error 'unexpected rf chain' of course.
I don't see any reason to expect a different case to be selected, but neither do I see any justification for assuming that a different one would not be selected. Nor is it clear under what circumstances the switch itself is executed at all.
One would normally expect one or both elements of rf_radio_type to be set during driver initialization if in fact the corresponding hardware is present. If the overall code (not just the parts you've presented) is correct, then probably it will not execute the presented switch when rf_radio_type[rf_chain] has a value different from both LGW_RADIO_TYPE_SX1255 and LGW_RADIO_TYPE_SX1257. On the other hand, printing the error message is essentially harmless in itself; if the driver prints it then that may be merely a quality-of-implementation issue, not a functional flaw.
So my question to the forum here is, aside from that this construct
above makes not really sense, is that not a faulty construct anyway ?
No, it isn't. And as far as I can tell, all constructs presented make as much sense as can be expected when taken out of context as they have been.
Will this compile and work as meant under Linux GCC ?
You have presented several individually valid C fragments, but they do not together constitute a valid translation unit. It is possible to form a complete, valid translation unit containing all those fragments that will compile successfully and do absolutely anything. The fragments will not inherently interfere with compilation, nor necessarily cause malfunction.
I try to use this code under GCC ARM and it does NOT work as it seems to be planned.
I find your apparent confidence in your assessment of the intended behavior of the overall code to be a bit optimistic.

Answer 2

edit: the array is not initialized at any place in the code
As pointed out in another answer, variables with static storage duration are required by the C standard to get implicitly initialized to zero if the programmer didn't set them explicitly. So this is code fine as far as the C standard is concerned.
However, writing code relying on initialization of static storage duration variables in .bss is recognized as bad practice in embedded systems programming. This is because the code that does the copy-down of .data and zero initialization of .bss is often omitted on embedded systems, as a very common non-standard practice in order to speed up program start-up.
Such a non-standard option is usually called "minimal/compact/fast start-up" or similar in the compiler options. If you have such an option enabled - which is quite common - the code won't work.
Good practice is to initialize such variables later on in "run-time" instead, before they are used for the first time.
Summary: the code is sloppily written, since the intention here is to provide portable code across many different microcontroller platforms, rather than to provide code for some PC. I would guess it was written by some kind of PC programmer, as is often the case for these protocol stacks.