Re: Function Argument Evaluation

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #2616

#2616

From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1991 22:18

10 lines
993 bytes

In article <17936@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe) writes:
>The only reason the output of the program in question can be
>"200 200" is because the BEHAVIOR of the PROGRAM (right Doug?) is
>undefined because the program violates the "shall" rule in paragraph
>2 of 3.3, ...

NO -- my original argument did NOT rely on undefined behavior.  It
relied on the unspecified order of evaluation of the subexpressions.
Even without the cited "shall" in the standard, "200 200" would have
been a valid output (but not "42 3.1416").

Technical Details

Message-ID: <15607@smoke.brl.mil>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn

References: <3461@inews.intel.com> <1991Mar26.181821.22912@cs.ucla.edu> <17936@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Function Argument Evaluation
Message-ID: <15607@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 27 Mar 91 22:18:58 GMT
References: <3461@inews.intel.com> <1991Mar26.181821.22912@cs.ucla.edu> <17936@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 10

Reply to Parent Message