Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cca!mirror!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: another auto-increment problem
Message-ID: <1278@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: Tue, 29-Sep-87 11:30:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: haddock.1278
Posted: Tue Sep 29 11:30:01 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Sep-87 07:24:16 EDT
References: <3680001@wdl1.UUCP> <6484@sgi.SGI.COM>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 15

In article <6484@sgi.SGI.COM> archer@elysium.SGI.COM (Archer Sully) writes:
>The use of increment and decrement operators in function calls 
>is always considered non-portable, precisely because order of
>evaluation isn't defined in C (cf K&R pp 212).

I don't really want to get involved in this thread, but your statement is
overly conservative.  A statement like "f(*jp++)" is perfectly portable; the
problem only occurs when you have *multiple* side effects in a single
expression.  (And not even then, if there is a sequence point between them.)

>Remember that most C-compilers push arguments right to left ...

At least on architectures where the stack grows downward.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint