Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rick
From: rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Wierd Compilers
Message-ID: <44181@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: Wed, 4-Nov-87 16:50:37 EST
Article-I.D.: beno.44181
Posted: Wed Nov  4 16:50:37 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Nov-87 10:19:39 EST
References: <367@white.gcm> <18964@amdcad.AMD.COM> <44177@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> <18998@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 10
Keywords: Sun
Summary: thats what I get for not including all the previous message...

In Article: <18964@amdcad.AMD.COM> tim@amdcad.AMD.COM (Tim Olson) writes:
> This is yet another reason to use pre-decrement over post-decrement when
> all that is wanted is the side-effect of decrementing, and the return
> value is thrown away.

I was referring to this statement which specifically states that the
return value is thrown away. Of course the compiler can't do that
optimization if you are using the return value for something.

--rick