Sujet : Re: Can you please verify that the analysis of these C functions is correct?
De : chris.m.thomasson.1 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Groupes : comp.lang.c comp.lang.c++Date : 22. Jun 2024, 21:26:06
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v57c0u$3tkbu$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/22/2024 1:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/22/24 3:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/22/2024 10:58 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
Am 22.06.2024 um 18:36 schrieb olcott:
>
It seems pretty stupid to allow gaps in the semantics of C++ programs. Simply specify that the order of evaluation is left to right unless:
(a) Otherwise specified such as operator precedence rules.
(b) Derives the same result as left to right ordering.
>
Most UB is there to allow optimizations, also in this case.
I've got no problem with that.
>
>
>
Humm. Sounds reasonable. UB is there to be defined by a non-conforming compiler? ;^)
Doesn't need to be Non-Conforming to define the behavior of Undefined Behavior!
Remember back when using threads in standard C was, technically, a no-no, unless you went to POSIX, or windows threads, ect...? Heck, back then, before C recognized threads, atomics and membars, I had to code my critical sequences that implemented certain lock-free and wait-free algorihtms in ASM:
https://web.archive.org/web/20071002183926/
http://appcore.home.comcast.net/;^)
Can you please verify that the analysis of these C functions is correct?
Re: Can you please verify that the analysis of these C functions is correct?
