From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-93412-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8489 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2004 18:18:15 -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 8482 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 18:18:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 18:18:14 -0000
Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (a17-128-100-204.apple.com [17.128.100.204])
	by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2PIL1qc018972
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:21:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay2.apple.com (relay2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.6) with ESMTP id <T688defad97118064cc7c8@mailgate2.apple.com>;
 Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:18:13 -0800
Received: from [17.201.20.186] (gambrinus.apple.com [17.201.20.186])
	by relay2.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2PIIBo4023513;
	Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:18:11 GMT
In-Reply-To: <m3d670u77c.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
References: <200403251803.i2PI384m020124@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <m3d670u77c.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <CB575E98-7E88-11D8-8C7F-000A95D7CD40@apple.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Dale Johannesen <dalej@apple.com>, law@redhat.com
From: Dale Johannesen <dalej@apple.com>
Subject: Re: Question for ISO C standards gurus
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:14:00 -0000
To: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)
X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01493.txt.bz2


On Mar 25, 2004, at 10:12 AM, Paul Jarc wrote:

> law@redhat.com wrote:
>>     if (!(names = ecgetlist(state, *state->pc++, 2, &htok))) {
> ...
>> Of particular interest is whether or not the increment occurs before
>> the call or after the call.
>
> n869, 6.5.2.2p10:
> # The order of evaluation of the function designator, the actual
> # arguments, and subexpressions within the actual arguments is
> # unspecified, but there is a sequence point before the actual call.
>
> So the side effect would take place before the sequence point, and
> thus before the call.  n869 was the latest public draft of C99; I
> don't have a copy of the final standard.  It's possible that this
> might have changed.

The final standard says the same, as does C89.