Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "_no_later_".
2011 Apr 20
3
[LLVMdev] Is this a bug in clang?
...the C99 standard,
5.1.2.3 Program execution:
} 2 ... At certain specified points in the execution sequence called
sequence points, all side effects
} of previous evaluations shall be complete and no side effects of
subsequent evaluations
} shall have taken place.
The side effect is made available _no_later_ than the sequence point.
There is no guarantee that it would not be made available earlier.
An example from the standard:
#include <stdio.h>
int sum;
char *p;
/* ... */
sum = sum * 10 - ’0’ + (*p++ = getchar());
the expression statement is grouped as if it were written as
sum = (((sum * 1...
2011 Apr 20
0
[LLVMdev] Is this a bug in clang?
...execution:
> } 2 ... At certain specified points in the execution sequence called
> sequence points, all side effects
> } of previous evaluations shall be complete and no side effects of
> subsequent evaluations
> } shall have taken place.
>
> The side effect is made available _no_later_ than the sequence point.
> There is no guarantee that it would not be made available earlier.
>
> An example from the standard:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> int sum;
> char *p;
> /* ... */
> sum = sum * 10 - ’0’ + (*p++ = getchar());
>
> the expression statement i...
2011 Apr 19
2
[LLVMdev] Is this a bug in clang?
Hello,
Is this a bug in clang, or a bug in my thinking?
/Joe Armstrong
/*
When I compile the following program I get different answers in clang and gcc.
$ gcc bug2.c
$ ./a.out
j = 40
$ clang bug2.c
$ ./a.out
j = 41
I think the correct answer is 41. If my understanding of C is correct
(which, or course, it might not be) the incremented value of i++ is
first made available