Re: pre, post increment standard behaviour, and friend function declaration
From: Ron Natalie (ron_at_sensor.com)
Date: 01/27/04
- Next message: Ron Natalie: "Re: Try blocks and not catching exceptions"
- Previous message: Adam H. Peterson: "Try blocks and not catching exceptions"
- In reply to: Jack Klein: "Re: pre, post increment standard behaviour, and friend function declaration"
- Next in thread: Karl Heinz Buchegger: "Re: pre, post increment standard behaviour, and friend function declaration"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:46:15 -0500
"Jack Klein" <jackklein@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:1mqb10h6nr0frbs3rm36tc387i8b86gbe5@4ax.com...
> No, honestly, it is unspecified as to whether it is undefined or not.
> There is nothing in the standard that prevents an implementation from
> evaluating all terms involving "k" before calling any of the operator
> functions. If an implementation does so, "k" is modified twice
> between sequence points, and its value is also accessed two other
> times in a manner not involved with calculating the new value. In
> this case, then, the behavior is undefined.
Nope, the behavior is simply undefined. The rules say that if the value is
modified twice between sequence point for ANY ALLOWABLE ORDERING
of operations, then the behavior is undefined.
- Next message: Ron Natalie: "Re: Try blocks and not catching exceptions"
- Previous message: Adam H. Peterson: "Try blocks and not catching exceptions"
- In reply to: Jack Klein: "Re: pre, post increment standard behaviour, and friend function declaration"
- Next in thread: Karl Heinz Buchegger: "Re: pre, post increment standard behaviour, and friend function declaration"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
