From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Documentation bug for __builtin_choose_expr
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:44:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041122131946.GA2893@mail.shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jeekimyxko.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > This built-in function is analogous to the `? :' operator in C,
> > except that the expression returned has its type unaltered by
> > promotion rules. Also, the built-in function does not evaluate
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > the expression that was not chosen. For example, if CONST_EXP
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > evaluates to true, EXP2 is not evaluated even if it has
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > side-effects.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > The way this is written implies that the underscored behaviour is
> > different from the `? :' operator in C.
>
> I don't see that. For me the word "also" implies "another analogousness".
It depends how you parse it.
> IMHO this is fact is worth noting because the usual rules for function
> calls in C is to evaluate all its arguments first, whereas this builtin
> does not do that even though it uses a function-like notation.
I agree it's worth noting. What do you think of the alternative wording
put forth by Joseph S. Myers, which I find clearer? This is it:
This built-in function is analogous to the `? :' operator in C,
except that the expression returned has its type unaltered by
promotion rules. Unlike most built-in functions, but like the
`? :' operator, this built-in function does not evaluate the
expression that was not chosen. For example, if CONST_EXP
evaluates to true, EXP2 is not evaluated even if it has
side-effects.
I can't check in the change, perhaps someone else can.
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-22 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-22 8:06 Jamie Lokier
2004-11-22 10:41 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-11-22 10:42 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-11-22 12:21 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-11-22 14:44 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2004-11-22 15:02 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-11-22 18:58 ` Robert Dewar
2004-11-22 20:45 ` Kai Henningsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041122131946.GA2893@mail.shareable.org \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=schwab@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).