Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!munnari!otc!metro!ipso!runx!dave
From: dave@runx.ips.oz (Dave Horsfall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: C Compiler Bug (possibly widespread)
Message-ID: <862@runx.ips.oz>
Date: Tue, 5-May-87 01:02:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: runx.862
Posted: Tue May  5 01:02:11 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 9-May-87 01:13:38 EDT
References: <203@m10ux.UUCP>
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Lines: 13

cur in any C program that passes procedures (i.e. void functions) as
> arguments, I don't understand how the bug could have persisted this long.
> The only work-around I can think of (besides changing the declaration of
> f and fp) is to use "if - else" instead of "? - :".
> -- 
> Michael Condict		{ihnp4|vax135|cuae2}!m10ux!mnc
> AT&T Bell Labs		(201)582-5911    MH 3B-416
> Murray Hill, NJ

Oh no!  Someone else just discovered this "bug".  Now for another
scintillating discussion for the next several weeks on whether
a "void" expression actually returns a value or not ...

Perhaps this ought to be included in the list of hints to new users
on what not to post, along with any proofs of 1=0.
--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)		 ISD: +61 2 438-3544   FAX: 439-7036
UNIX Technical Support		 STD:  (02) 438-3544   TLX:  AA27411
NEC Information Systems Aust.	 ACS: dave@astra.necisa.oz (also CSNET) 
3rd Floor, 99 Nicholson St 	ARPA: dave%astra.necisa.oz@seismo.css.gov
St. Leonards  NSW  2064		UUCP: {enea,hplabs,mcvax,prlb2,seismo, \
AUSTRALIA			ubc-vision,ukc}!munnari!astra.necisa.oz!dave