From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14340 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2003 21:46:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14327 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2003 21:46:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monkey.daikokuya.co.uk) (213.152.55.49) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2003 21:46:17 -0000 Received: from neil by monkey.daikokuya.co.uk with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18UDA0-0003ck-00; Thu, 02 Jan 2003 21:45:52 +0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 21:46:00 -0000 From: Neil Booth To: Songtao Chen Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Is this a bug? Message-ID: <20030102214552.GA13907@daikokuya.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030102162123.020738d8@toque.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030102162123.020738d8@toque.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030102163940.02192b80@toque.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030102163940.02192b80@toque.cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00164.txt.bz2 List-Id: Songtao Chen wrote:- > Hi Neil, > > Thanks for replying. > > Can you tell me why the parentheses are irrelevant, > any doc to support that? For the same reason that (2) is the same as 2, and not 3. Like I said, post-increment returns the value before incrementing. Neil. > > Songtao > > At 09:23 PM 1/2/2003 +0000, Neil Booth wrote: > >Songtao Chen wrote:- > > > >> Hi there, > >> > >> It appears to be a bug to me. > > > >No, i++ returns the value before increment. Parentheses are irrelevant. > > > >Neil. >