Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Function Argument Evaluation
Message-ID: <15607@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 27 Mar 91 22:18:58 GMT
References: <3461@inews.intel.com> <1991Mar26.181821.22912@cs.ucla.edu> <17936@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <17936@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe) writes:
>The only reason the output of the program in question can be
>"200 200" is because the BEHAVIOR of the PROGRAM (right Doug?) is
>undefined because the program violates the "shall" rule in paragraph
>2 of 3.3, ...

NO -- my original argument did NOT rely on undefined behavior.  It
relied on the unspecified order of evaluation of the subexpressions.
Even without the cited "shall" in the standard, "200 200" would have
been a valid output (but not "42 3.1416").