This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: statement expressions and extended asm bug?


Don't mix up undefined with well defined but non-deterministic
semantics. The function calls in such a case may indeed result
in a non-deterministic semantics (although in this particular
case they don't),

Yes, I overlooked the "return 0", as I wrote already. So very very sorry about that.

but the result is well defined. But the
macro or explicit multiple increment is indeed undefined.
At least that's my understanding of current C semantics!

The semantics are not well defined, or at least not uniquely defined, if you like that term better. The standard calls it "unspecified behaviour" I think?

Any program with output depending on unspecified behaviour is
"not strictly conforming", but is a "correct program".

FWIW,


Segher



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]