Re: problem in C++ pointer

["Jay Krell" <jay.krell@cornell.edu>]

>I just wonder what is the different between the original code
>(using a single "cout", see test.cc attached) and new code
>(use another cout to print ++X[0], above).

The difference is that there is definitely a "sequence point" at every
semicolon. The effects of code to the left of a semicolon are guaranteed to
be visible before the effects of code to the right of the same semicolon.

int i, j, k;
    F(j = i++, k = i++);
is undefined, the parameters can be evaluated in any order even sort of
simultaneously, whereas
    j = i++;
    k = i++;
    F(j, k);
and
    k = i++;
    j = i++;
    F(j, k);

are defined. The first line must be completely executed before the second
line.

>    Actually, I tried the original program many time on my PC
>running Cygnus. To remove external factor, I close all other
>program after a re-boot.

I got the same behavior as you, with 2.95.2 to as well. I tried reading the
assembly (gcc -s x.cpp, then look at the file x.s) but it didn't include
commented out C++ source so was too hard to follow.

 - Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: swe sd <ccwork@hotmail.com>
To: jay.krell@cornell.edu <jay.krell@cornell.edu>
Cc: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com <cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com>
Date: Sunday, March 12, 2000 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: problem in C++ pointer


>  First of all, thanks for you kindy answer ...
>  I have the last question. I rewrite the program as follow:
>     line 1:  #include <iostream>
>     line 2:  void main()
>     line 3:  { const int size=10;
>     line 4:    int A[size];
>     line 5:    int *X=NULL, i;
>     line 6:    for (i=0;i<size;i++) A[i]=i;
>     line 7:    cout<<A[0]<<" "<<&A<<" "<<&A[0]<<endl;
>     line 8:    X=A;
>     line 9:    cout<<A[0]<<" "<<&A<<" "<<&A[0]<<endl
>     line 10:       <<*X<<endl
>     line 11:       <<*X+5<<endl
>     line 12:       <<*X<<" "<<A[0]<<endl
>     line 13:       <<5+X[0]<<endl
>     line 14:       <<( X[0]==0 ? "X[0]=0" : "X[0]!=0")<<endl;
>     line 15:   cout<<++X[0]<<endl;    //the change here
>     line 16: }
>    and executing it gives output:
>           $./a.out
>           0 0x259fd7c 0x259fd7c
>           0 0x259fd7c 0x259fd7c
>           0
>           5
>           0 0
>           5
>           X[0]=0
>           1
>    Obviously, it gives the correct answer (line 7 = line 9). I
>just wonder what is the different between the original code (using
>a single "cout", see test.cc attached) and new code (use another
>cout to print ++X[0], above).
>    Actually, I tried the original program many time on my PC
>running Cygnus. To remove external factor, I close all other
>program after a re-boot. But the result is still wrong (see last e-mail).
>    Then, to test my program is correct or not, I tried it on a
>UNIX SVR with gcc compiler. Then the program works properly.
>    So, I just conclude there is some wrong with the cygwin, or
>not as good as gcc. Thanks.
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com