statement expressions and extended asm bug?

[Segher Boessenkool]

> 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