Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!td2cad!brister
From: brister@td2cad.intel.com (James Brister)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Evaluation order of assignment.
Message-ID: <1045@td2cad.intel.com>
Date: 17 Aug 88 20:28:55 GMT
References: <957@orion.cf.uci.edu> <13036@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: brister@td2cad.UUCP (James Brister)
Followup-To: brister@td2cad.intel.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Intel TD, Santa Clara CA
Lines: 17

In article <13036@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>In article <957@orion.cf.uci.edu> schmidt@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Douglas
>C. Schmidt) writes:
>>Is the following always guaranteed to produce the "intended" result:
>>
>>   return(head->next = head = (struct list *) malloc(sizeof(struct list)));
>
>Aside from the fact that there are two `*'s missing, and that malloc
>can return NULL, the answer is no.
>

I'm curious; Why not? (assuming the two '*' were there and that malloc never 
returned NULL.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Brister                       "In my previous life I was Shirley McLaine"
brister@td2cad.intel.com
brister@td2cad.UUCP