Tom Lane írta:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>>
>>> Is it *really* a bug? I recalled a comment from my C teacher
>>> in '92 or '93 about this exact issue, that the prefix/postfix
>>> increment/decrement operators are executed in the
>>> statement in an implementation-defined order,
>>>
>
>
>> Not if they come after a short-circuit operator such as && - after all,
>> that's what short-circuit evaluation implies. If the left hand operand
>> of && is false the right hand should not be evaluated at all.
>>
>
> Yes. && is a sequence point and the compiler is not allowed to move
> side-effects across a sequence point. What your C teacher was warning
> you against was things like
> a[i] = i++;
> '=' is not a sequence point so it's undefined which array index
> will be stored into.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Thanks to both of you, this was really informative.
Actually my C teacher didn't mention such optimization barriers.
It seems I need to look up the raw C language specs...
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
--
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/
