Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!usc!basil.usc.edu!blarson From: blarson@basil.usc.edu (bob larson) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Declarations in switches, errors Message-ID: <20222@usc.edu> Date: 30 Sep 89 19:32:45 GMT References: <561@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <11158@smoke.BRL.MIL> <637@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1989Sep30.052000.13719@utzoo.uucp> <30540@news.Think.COM> Sender: news@usc.edu Reply-To: blarson@basil.usc.edu (bob larson) Organization: USC AIS, Los Angeles Lines: 20 >In article <1989Sep30.052000.13719@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Such >>initializers *do* *not* get executed in any conforming implementation. In article <30540@news.Think.COM> barmar@kulla (Barry Margolin) writes: >Well, since the initial value of automatic variables is undefined, a >conforming implementation COULD execute them. It COULD NOT execute any of the side effects the initializers have, however. A compiler that recognises this case should IMHO just give a warning. I have ported megabytes of net code to a machine that does not generate correct code for any declarations in a switch statement block, (code to adjust the stack is generated where it is never executed) and have found only one program where this is a problem. (C-kermit, the current beta has this fixed.) -- Bob Larson Arpa: blarson@basil.usc.edu Uucp: usc!basil!blarson