Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!camelback!volpe
From: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Function Argument Evaluation
Message-ID: <17985@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 28 Mar 91 14:57:42 GMT
References: <7621@polstra.UUCP> <17750@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1991Mar25.195234.7179@sq.sq.com> <9439@cognos.UUCP>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Lines: 17

In article <9439@cognos.UUCP>, jimp@cognos.UUCP (Jim Patterson) writes:
|>So, *(p=&x) is actually *(p) after assignment, not *(&x), and any of the
|>four results quoted previously is possible.

I believe that in any situation in which the behavior is *not* undefined,
there is absolutely no difference between "the value of the left operand
after assignment" and "the value of the right operand suitably cast to
the type of the left operand".

Drawing such a distinction affects things only when something has been
done to render the behavior undefined. If there's a counter example
to the above paragraph, I'd love to see it.
                                 
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com