This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [testsuite gfortran] partial fix for secnds*.f
- From: "R. D. Flowers, Chattanooga TN USA" <rd at chalice dot us>
- To: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <rask at sygehus dot dk>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 03:10:57 +0000
- Subject: Re: [testsuite gfortran] partial fix for secnds*.f
- References: <1180380870.19525.ezmlm@gcc.gnu.org> <465B0E0B.90309@chalice.us> <20070529024158.GL5690@sygehus.dk>
- Reply-to: base at chatta dot us
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 05:14:51PM +0000, R. D. Flowers, Chattanooga TN USA wrote:
I think we should use parentheses to enforce the order.
I could be missing something here, and it is almost separate statements,
and might be ugly, but -- comma clauses?
foo=term1,foo+=term2,foo+=term3 ... ;
<URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#nonbugs_c>
The link you supplied points to potential problems if there are
inadequate sequence points in the presence of side-effects. It doesn't
mention comma clauses, does it?
I do not see the problem when providing adequate sequence points ( what
AFAIK is the sole purpose of comma's in a statement -- comma clauses ),
and when the terms are constants or simple expressions (so no side-effects).
Am I missing something embarassingly obvious ( comma got removed from
the C standard or something )?