Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!hc!lll-winken!arisia!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A curriosity in the C compiler...
Message-ID: <588@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 28 Oct 88 09:10:01 GMT
References: <530@uvicctr.UUCP>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 12

In article <530@uvicctr.UUCP> sbanner1@uvicctr.UUCP (S. John Banner) writes:
>	This is a quick test of the C compiler, for implied bracketing...
>This will determine if the expression "a = b == c" is parsed
>as "(a = b) == c" (which is correct), or as "a = (b == c)" (which is not).

Surely there is some mistake here: == binds more tightly than = does.
You wouldn't expect "a = b + c" to be parsed as "(a=b) + c" would you?
The bracketing "a = (b == c)" is correct according to an old ANSI draft
I checked, and according to cparen [never leave for work without it].

The Sequent C compiler complained about an illegal pointer/integer
combinition in line 23 (counting the first #include as line 1) which
is the for(..) loop.