Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:8375 comp.unix.questions:6151
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: BSD C compiler bug
Message-ID: <7507@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 21 Mar 88 11:42:48 GMT
References: <570@mtxinu.UUCP> <10747@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <10747@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
-In article <570@mtxinu.UUCP> tim@mtxinu.UUCP (Tim Wood) writes:
->	unsigned char	**foo;
->	foo = (NULL, NULL);
->	foo = ( !foo ? NULL : (fn(2), NULL) );
-The 11 Jan 1988 draft of the dpANS has this to say about constant
-expressions (p. 56):
...
-That disallows the second expression (foo = (NULL, NULL)) explicitly,
...

What do constant expressions have to do with it?  If this were a
static initializer I could see the relevance, but it's not.  The
reported behavior is simply a bug.