Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!ni.umd.edu!uc780.umd.edu!cs450a03
From: cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: RE: Compiler code (was a flame fest) (now a lesser fl
Message-ID: <22APR91.20055594@uc780.umd.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 91 20:05:55 GMT
References: <1991Apr17.180342.25312@engin.umich.edu> <91112.093750GHGAQZ4@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be>
Sender: usenet@ni.umd.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: The University of Maryland University College
Lines: 33

(sorry about the mangled subject line.  My newsreader does that for
you automatically.)

Jorrit Tyberghein   >
Someone Else        >>

>> Nope.  ++ and -- are unary operators of the highest precedence.
>>The only difference between ++x and x++ is the value they assume,
>>the order of evaluation follows standard C precedence..

>I think you are wrong. Look at the following results :
>I have tried this with our mainframe compiler :

[examples like  (n--)*(n++)  deleted]

If you have C change something twice, without specifying what order to
change them in, then C will usually pick the order arbitrarily.

This means, for instance, that

    int n=4;
    printf("%d\n", (n--)*(n++));

could print 12, 16, or 20, depending on the compiler.

Also, it is possible that the idiom (n--)*(n++) will evaluate in a
different order at different places in the _same_ program, especially
if the program is compiled with optimization turned on.

Raul Rockwell

(I'd have thought more people would have pounced on this thread
earlier....)