[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Small curiosity, re operator precedence.
From: |
Lostgallifreyan |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Small curiosity, re operator precedence. |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:14:33 +0100 |
Lostgallifreyan <address@hidden> wrote:
(31/03/2012 09:47)
>Please ignore any 'unsafe' aspect this example might have, it IS bounded in
>the context I'm using it in....
>
>while((*--o=*--i)!=92)
>
>I was tryign to reduce stuff, so came up with this to try:
>
>while(92!=*--o=*--i)
>
>TCC loves it, GCC hates it. :)
>
>GCC thinks it's doing this: while((92!=*--o)=*--i) and therefore an invalid
>lvalue, which makes sense given what Wikipedia has to say about precedence,
>but TCC (still using v0.9.24 here) seems to do what I was wondering if it
>might do, to compare the dereferenced value when it is copied. I reverted to
>the original form because the more compilers take my code the happier I am
>about it, but I'm interested. Is this a bug, or a feature? :)
>
Rudolph Loew, maker of the 48 bit LBA patch for W98, amongst other things, says
this:
It does appear to be a bug as far as I can tell.
They should not be reinterpreting the precedence even if the intent can be
inferred.
I'm losing my limited power to code, I think my brain is dying. Not kidding.
Not a coding problem so I'll say no more about it other than this: I cannot be
trusted to fix the code, even if I try, especially as I don't know enough about
TCC, and this needs to be looked at by someone working on TCC! You have a
choice of two base assumptions: Rudolph Loew's brain is also dying, or there is
a problem you need to check out.
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Small curiosity, re operator precedence.,
Lostgallifreyan <=