On 16 Oct 2000, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Jonathan George <Jonathan.George@trcinc.com> writes:
>
> > This patch has many bogus corrections where new variables were created, but
> > the order of evaluation is already unambiguous.
> >
> > For example each comma separated clause in an expression is guaranteed to be
> > completely evaluated before the next comma separated clause Including
> > Assignments.
>
> No, that is not true in general. When the comma in question is
> the comma operator, it is true. But when the comma separates
> arguments to a function, it is not: the order of evaluation of
> function arguments is implementation dependent. See C89 section
> 6.3.2.2 "Function calls":
[snip]
No arguments here, but proposed fixes were remarkably ugly. Example:
tmp = *p++;
*q = f(tmp, *p++);
return p;
is equivalent to more idiomatic
*q = f(p[0], p[1]);
return p+2;
And example with copying the string up to the comma... Yuck. Legal C !=
decent C.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 21:00:10 EST