Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!mit-eddie!gatech!amd!markg
From: markg@amd.UUCP (Mark Gorlinsky)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Returning a value from ?:
Message-ID: <4057@amd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jun-87 19:28:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: amd.4057
Posted: Mon Jun  1 19:28:28 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jun-87 03:47:05 EDT
References: <7555@brl-adm.ARPA>
Reply-To: markg@amd.UUCP (Mark Gorlinsky)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices
Lines: 29

In article <7555@brl-adm.ARPA> DAVE%UWF.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.EDU writes:
>    Next in line, I just (yesterday) got a copy of Turbo C, and was
>trying out some old programs on it.  It works mostly like a champ, but
>I ran across a small bug.  It goes like this:
>
>     (f(a) * f(p) > 0) ? (a = p) : (b = p);
>
>...  I got it to work by splitting up the ? : up into
>an if ... else, but it worked w/o hitch under Lattice 3.0.  Is the above
>statement not valid C code? 

This is certainly proper use of the ternary operator "?:".

I tried to make my TURBO C fail using your code fragment.  It DIDN'T fail!!
You must have something else wrong in you code, or you need to give us a better
sample of the code!  

Did you try to isolate this statement?  What memory model were you using?  What
options were set?  Please give more information!
 




-- 
 Mark Gorlinsky - AMD Processor Products Division/APPS SQA
 UUCP: {decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amd!markg
 AT&T: (408) 982-7811
 DISCLAIMER: My opinions are mine, not my employers.