Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!maui.cs.ucla.edu!jon
From: jon@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Jonathan Gingerich)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Function Argument Evaluation
Message-ID: <1991Mar26.181821.22912@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 91 18:18:21 GMT
References: <15565@smoke.brl.mil> <1991Mar25.174542.24419@cs.ucla.edu> <3461@inews.intel.com>
Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News Himself)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: maui.cs.ucla.edu

In article <3461@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1991Mar25.174542.24419@cs.ucla.edu> jon@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Jonathan Gingerich) writes:
>>I understand perfectly well that *(p=&x) can be evaluated "after" p has been
>>assigned &y.  But does this affect the value of p=&x?  I.e. does "the value
>>of the left operand after the assignment" mean "immediately after" or 
>>"sometime after, before the next sequence point"?
>
>[A full explanation of how different sequences of the same set of operations
> can lead to different results.]

Thanks Blair, (and everyone else contributing) I do appreciate the efforts you
are making on my behalf.  However, and I thought it was plain, I understand
your point perfectly well.  My question remains 'Does "the value
of the left operand after the assignment" mean "immediately after" or 
"sometime after, before the next sequence point"?'
A second question is whether the expression (print statement) is defined to
begin with, which would render the above question meaningless, unless it
can be reconstructed with a volitile variable.  I had thought Doug was
claiming the statement was not undefined, but I may have misinterpreted
his posting.

Jon.