From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-93408-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29933 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2004 18:03:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29925 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 18:03:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 18:03:23 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2PI3MWA023611
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:03:22 -0500
Received: from speedy.slc.redhat.com (vpn50-43.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.43])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2PI3Lj01195
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:03:22 -0500
Received: from redhat.com (law@localhost)
	by speedy.slc.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id i2PI384m020124
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:03:08 -0700
Message-Id: <200403251803.i2PI384m020124@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: speedy.slc.redhat.com: law owned process doing -bs
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Reply-To: law@redhat.com
From: law@redhat.com
Subject: Question for ISO C standards gurus
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:47:00 -0000
X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01489.txt.bz2


Given something like this:


execfuncdef(Estate state, int do_exec)
{
    Shfunc shf;
    char *s;
    int signum, nprg, sbeg, nstrs, npats, len, plen, i, htok = 0;
    Wordcode beg = state->pc, end;
    Eprog prog;
    Patprog *pp;
    LinkList names;
    end = beg + ((state->pc[-1]) >> 5);
    if (!(names = ecgetlist(state, *state->pc++, 2, &htok))) {
      state->pc = end;
      return 0;
    }
}


Does the ISO standard say anything about when the side effect of incrementing
state->pc takes effect?  Or is it implementation dependent?  Of particular
interest is whether or not the increment occurs before the call or after
the call.

jeff