Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!enea!chalmers!myab!lars
From: lars@myab.UUCP (lars)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: unary +
Message-ID: <138@myab.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 15-Mar-86 23:47:45 EST
Article-I.D.: myab.138
Posted: Sat Mar 15 23:47:45 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Mar-86 05:30:30 EST
References: <1227@mtx5a.UUCP>
Reply-To: lars@myab.UUCP (lars)
Distribution: net
Organization: Myab Gothenburg, Sweden
Lines: 18


In article <1227@mtx5a.UUCP> esg@mtx5a.UUCP writes:
>An expression a + (b + c) may be calculated by some
>implementations as (a + b) + c. To enforce the
>intended precedence of operations one should use
>a + +(b + c).

Why not use this this construction:

a + (volatile)(b + c) ?

Would this imply that the access of 'b' and 'c' is "volatile" ?
In that case the following should also work:

(volatile)(a + (b + c)).
-- 
    ______________________________________________________
	Lars Pensjo
	{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!chalmers!myab!lars