Article View: comp.std.c
Article #2623Re: Function Argument Evaluation
From: Christopher R Volpe
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1991 14:57
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1991 14:57
17 lines
1231 bytes
1231 bytes
In article <9439@cognos.UUCP>, jimp@cognos.UUCP (Jim Patterson) writes:
|>So, *(p=&x) is actually *(p) after assignment, not *(&x), and any of the
|>four results quoted previously is possible.
I believe that in any situation in which the behavior is *not* undefined,
there is absolutely no difference between "the value of the left operand
after assignment" and "the value of the right operand suitably cast to
the type of the left operand".
Drawing such a distinction affects things only when something has been
done to render the behavior undefined. If there's a counter example
to the above paragraph, I'd love to see it.
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<17985@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!camelback!volpeReferences:
<7621@polstra.UUCP> <17750@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1991Mar25.195234.7179@sq.sq.com> <9439@cognos.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!camelback!volpe From: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Function Argument Evaluation Message-ID: <17985@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Date: 28 Mar 91 14:57:42 GMT References: <7621@polstra.UUCP> <17750@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1991Mar25.195234.7179@sq.sq.com> <9439@cognos.UUCP> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Reply-To: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe) Lines: 17