"Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com> writes:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Jan Hudec wrote:
>
> > > > *a++ = byte_rev[*a]
> > > It looks perferctly okay to me. Anyway, whenever would you listen to a
> > > C++ book talking about good C coding :p
> >
>
> It's simple. If any object is modified twice without an intervening
> sequence point, the results are undefined. The sequence-point in
>
> *a++ = byte_rev[*a];
>
> ... is the ';'.
>
> So, we look at 'a' and see if it's modified twice. It isn't. It
> gets modified once with '++'. Now we look at the object to which
> 'a' points. Is it modified twice? No, it's read once in [*a], and
> written once in "*a++ =".
>
> So, it's perfectly good code with a well defined behavior as far as
> 'C' is concerned.
Nope. In particular it isn't defined if [*a] is evaluated before
or after a++ is evaluated.
> I think it is ugly, however, the writer probably
> thought it was beautiful. If somebody went around and fixed all
> the ugly code, it would still be ugly in someone else's eyes.
True, but not significant. You can find a set of people whose opinion
matters (say core kernel maintainers) and not have that looks ugly in
their eyes. In any case broken code is broken.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 23 2001 - 21:00:27 EST