From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-48672-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30916 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2003 14:42:50 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30560 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2003 14:42:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com) (171.70.145.30)
  by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 6 Jan 2003 14:42:33 -0000
Received: from toque.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@toque.cisco.com [161.44.201.11])
	by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h06Efpfm000407;
	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 06:41:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from songtao-w2k01.cisco.com (dhcp-kta1-161-44-193-165.cisco.com [161.44.193.165])
	by toque.cisco.com (Mirapoint)
	with ESMTP id ADW00700;
	Mon, 6 Jan 2003 09:33:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030106094044.01d13dd8@toque.cisco.com>
X-Sender: songtao@toque.cisco.com
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:17:00 -0000
To: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>, Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.co.uk>
From: Songtao Chen <songtao@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Is this a bug?
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <87k7hkxebd.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030102173856.01f3e0c0@toque.cisco.com>
 <4.3.2.7.2.20030102163940.02192b80@toque.cisco.com>
 <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>
 <4.3.2.7.2.20030102173856.01f3e0c0@toque.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

Hi Zack and Neil,

Thank you very much for the explanation.

Songtao

At 11:09 PM 1/4/2003 -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>Songtao Chen <songtao@cisco.com> writes:
>
> >     i = ++i % 2;
> >     i = i++ % 2;
>
>Both of these are invalid C - you can't modify i twice in the same
>statement (a slight simplification, which will do).
>
>Write instead
>
>       i = (i+1) % 2;
>
>to get the behavior you wanted.
>
>zw