Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc.

Paul Eggert (eggert@twinsun.com) writes:
> For example, the C Standard, by my reading, does not define the
> behavior of `F()+F()' if F's definition is `int F() {return x++;}',


Only if you ignore or (in my opinion; Paul disagrees) misinterpret
the part where it says "Except as indicated, statements are executed
in sequence".


> ... it seems that most of the committee didn't want this example to
> have undefined behavior -- it's just that they didn't cover the issue
> carefully enough in the standard.


> Eventually they made a decision, but the point is that the original
> standard shouldn't have been so unclear.


Yep. In fact, I remember that either during the public review of the
C standard or in a private communication with the redactor, I suggested
that it should explain what it meant to call a function. The response
as to the effect that this is a general concept in programming languages
and everyone knows what it means, and I accepted that. But this matter
of disagreement showed that I was wrong to do so!
--
Mark Brader
msb@sq.com
SoftQuad Inc.
Toronto




--

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.