Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!burl!codas!killer!jfh From: jfh@killer.UUCP (John Haugh) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Autoincrement question Summary: No, it is actually implementation independent ... Message-ID: <2381@killer.UUCP> Date: 8 Dec 87 18:23:49 GMT References: <1507@ogcvax.UUCP> <7507@alice.UUCP> Organization: Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers Lines: 25 In article <7507@alice.UUCP>, ark@alice.UUCP writes: > In article <1507@ogcvax.UUCP>, schaefer@ogcvax.UUCP writes: > > The real question is: Is the order of evaluation in a statement like > > bar->tmp = bar++; > > well-defined, or is it implementation-dependent? > > It is implementation-dependent. No, it is guaranteed to produce different results on all machines. I thnk that qualifies it for being implementation independent doesn't it ;-))) ? The obvious answer to how to code that is bar->tmp = bar; or (bar + 1)->tmp = bar; bar++; bar++; I'm not going to pretend to know _what_ you intended. Your example is not only barfed from a C point of view, I wouldn't want to see it. - John. -- John F. Haugh II SNAIL: HECI Exploration Co. Inc. UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!jfh 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600 ...!ihnp4!killer!rpp386!jfh Dallas, TX. 75243 "Don't Have an Oil Well? Then Buy One!" (214) 231-0993