Article View: net.lang.c
Article #9353Re: Expression sequencing query
From: SA User Serv.
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1986 18:54
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1986 18:54
19 lines
1622 bytes
1622 bytes
In article <760@oakhill.UUCP> tomc@oakhill.UUCP (Tom Cunningham) writes: > /* a = b + b + b */ > a = ((b=1),b) + ((b=2),b) + ((b=3),b) > >I expected the result to be 6. With the Microsoft C compiler and the >compiler on the Sun 3, the result is 9. Apparently the parenthetical >assignments are all getting done before the comma and addition. Any >thoughts on this? > Tom, I agree, the result should be 6, as defined by K&R, but I have tried it on a Cyber 180/830 running NOS VE, and get 9, also AT&T's 3B5 System V, gets 9, But A copy of the Small-C Compiler that I have ported comes up with a 6. Does this seam to imply that Small-C is a better (more accurate) compiler, than those that AT&T produces? I find it totally unaccepable that AT&T can not produce a working C compiler. I would like everyone to test it on as many machines as prossible, to see if we can find as least ONE other besides Small-C, that works. Mike Stump ucbvax!hplabs!csun!csunb!beusemrs
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<111@titan.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!csun!titan!eectrsefReferences:
<760@oakhill.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!csun!titan!eectrsef From: eectrsef@titan.UUCP ( SA User Serv.) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Expression sequencing query Message-ID: <111@titan.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Sep-86 14:54:27 EDT Article-I.D.: titan.111 Posted: Fri Sep 19 14:54:27 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Sep-86 21:05:15 EDT References: <760@oakhill.UUCP> Reply-To: eectrsef@titan.UUCP (Sean Eric Fagan - SA User Serv.) Distribution: net Organization: CSU, Northridge Sun Computer Lines: 19 Keywords: Bugs