Re: statement expressions and extended asm bug?

[Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>]

On 19-mrt-04, at 15:18, Segher Boessenkool wrote:

> On 19-mrt-04, at 14:53, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> > Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > It's no stranger than "func (a++, a++)" being undefined.
> >
> > That's undefined.  This isn't undefined:
> >
> >     static inline void increment (int * ptr) { *ptr++; return 0; }
> >     func (increment (&a), increment (&a));
>
> No, it is just as undefined.  The compiler is free to call
> either the "left" or the "right" increment() first.

Erm.  Well of course you return 0 in any case, so evaluation order
doesn't change the meaning of this example.  But it's invalid
code anyway, now that I took a second look at it ;-)


Segher