> Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > I'm not that good at C, mas aren't expressions with side-effects
> > ill-defined? How can we be sure (short of tracking the gcc
> > mailing lists) that i will be incremented after the left part of
> > the test?
>
> Because it is defined in the C standard?
>
> Rik
maybe im reading the thread wrong, but Cesar is saying the code
while ((mm->swap_cnt << 2 * (i + 1) < max_cnt) && i++ < 10)
does not guarentee that the expression to the left of && occurs prior to
"i++" -- and he is Right,
because the C standard does *not* specify this. proof is in K&R, where they
explicitly mention compiler design or optimization can change compound
statement ordering in the resulting machine code. thus, i agree an
alternative should be considered in the kernel.
Robert Love
rml@tech9.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:13 EST