Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!eql.caltech.edu!rankin
From: rankin@eql.caltech.edu (Pat Rankin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: &&**
Message-ID: <1990Sep7.230503.2045@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 7 Sep 90 23:00:45 GMT
References: <1990Sep7.021321.18381@watmath.waterloo.edu> <1990Sep7.080855.24070@irisa.fr>
Sender: news@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu
Reply-To: rankin@eql.caltech.edu
Organization: Environmental Quality Laboratory, Caltech
Lines: 15
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4x

In article <1990Sep7.080855.24070@irisa.fr>, ridoux@irisa.fr (Olivier Ridoux) writes...
[...]
>My question is not on the validity of the composition of the operator `` & ''.
>It is rather "what is the rational of the cc and gcc compilers (sun4) that 
>makes them accept the following program.  Can I expect that every C compiler
>will have the same rational ?

     VAXC (VMS) rejects it:
[...]
>  printf( "%c\n", *(*( &(&(*(*(ppc)))) )) );  /* 1 */
%CC-E-INVOPERAND, Invalid operand of a "& (address-of)" operator.

(Same error repeated for the other similar lines.  VAXC V3.1)

                Pat Rankin, rankin@eql.caltech.edu