Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA
From: gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  C question
Message-ID: <9858@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 13:01:38 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9858
Posted: Wed Apr 10 13:01:38 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 06:49:49 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 16

A more useful question might be, "What does the draft proposed ANSI C
standard say about
	x = x++;
?"  The X3J11 committee has attempted to deal with such issues by
identifying what constitutes a "side effect" (post-increment is one)
and when side effects must be enforced during execution (at "sequence
points").  Assignment is NOT flagged as a sequence point; I don't
know whether this was intentional but I suspect it was.  The ";" of
an expression-statement causes the expression to be evaluated for its
side effects, though.

The upshot is that the result is implementation-dependent.  In general,
one is asking for trouble any time he modifies AND uses an object in
different places in the same expression, even if the behavior is
supposed to be well-defined.  I have yet to see a compiler that wouldn't
break if pushed too hard.