Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!cmcl2!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!csun!titan!eectrsef
From: eectrsef@titan.UUCP ( SA User Serv.)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Expression sequencing query
Message-ID: <111@titan.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Sep-86 14:54:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: titan.111
Posted: Fri Sep 19 14:54:27 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Sep-86 21:05:15 EDT
References: <760@oakhill.UUCP>
Reply-To: eectrsef@titan.UUCP (Sean Eric Fagan - SA User Serv.)
Distribution: net
Organization: CSU, Northridge Sun Computer
Lines: 19
Keywords: Bugs

In article <760@oakhill.UUCP> tomc@oakhill.UUCP (Tom Cunningham) writes:
>	/* a = b + b + b */
>	a = ((b=1),b) + ((b=2),b) + ((b=3),b)
>
>I expected the result to be 6.  With the Microsoft C compiler and the
>compiler on the Sun 3, the result is 9.  Apparently the parenthetical
>assignments are all getting done before the comma and addition.  Any
>thoughts on this?
>
Tom, I agree, the result should be 6, as defined by K&R, but I have tried
it on a Cyber 180/830 running NOS VE, and get 9, also AT&T's 3B5
System V, gets 9, But A copy of the Small-C Compiler that I have ported
comes up with a 6.  Does this seam to imply that Small-C is a better
(more accurate) compiler, than those that AT&T produces?  I find it
totally unaccepable that AT&T can not produce a working C compiler.
I would like everyone to test it on as many machines as prossible, to
see if we can find as least ONE other besides Small-C, that works.

Mike Stump  ucbvax!hplabs!csun!csunb!beusemrs