Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: operator functions and classes (was Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false")
Message-ID: <6590293@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 9 Oct 89 18:37:54 GMT
References: <PORTUESI.89Sep25092744@tweezers.esd.sgi.com>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 37

//here's another simple test for those who complain my previous test can
//be evaluated by a compiler completely at compile time while still generating
//bogus runtime evaluations. [Obviously, no amount of testing can "prove" a 
//real compiler works right.  What I'm trying to do is convince any remaining
//sceptics who still think there is a compiler that evaluates !!x to mean x
//to find it for us! [I've yet to hear from *anyone* who actually has found
//a compiler that generates bogus code for !!x.  --Or maybe whoever wrote
//such a compiler is too ashamed to admit it! :-]]

#ifdef __cplusplus
  extern "C" 
  {
    int printf(const char* const, ...);
    int rand();	// yes I *know* rand is weak -- its also widely available.
    void exit(int status);
  };
#endif

main()
{
  int i,j,k;
  for (i=0; i<1000; ++i)
  {
    j = ((unsigned char)(rand()))-128;

    k = (j!=0);
    if (k != (!!j)) 
    {
      printf("failure on: %d\n",j);
      exit(1);
    }
    else
    {
      printf("success on: %d\n",j);
    }
  }
}