On 2012-01-31 09:16:09 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> For normal variables, "a = b = 0" is just ugly - but that is a
> matter of opinion.
and it is handled badly by GCC:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52106
(this is just a missing warning... Still, inconsistency is bad.)
--
Vincent
On 30/01/2012 23:59, Zoltán Kócsi wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Until gcc gets a feature allowing it to whack the programmer on the back
of the head with Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" for writing
such stupid code that relies on the behaviour of volatile "a = b = 0;",
then a warning see
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Zoltán Kócsi wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:51:47 -0600
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Zoltán Kócsi wrote:
>> > David Brown wrote:
>> >
>> >> Until gcc gets a feature allowing it to whack the programmer on the back
>> >> of the
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:51:47 -0600
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Zoltán Kócsi wrote:
> > David Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Until gcc gets a feature allowing it to whack the programmer on the back
> >> of the head with Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" for writing
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:38:15 +0100
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> A warning would be much of a help to write unambiguous, robust code.
> So the question is rather why user refuses to write robust code in the
> first place once there is a warning.
The user (me, in this case) does not refuse writing r
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Zoltán Kócsi wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>
>> Until gcc gets a feature allowing it to whack the programmer on the back
>> of the head with Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" for writing
>> such stupid code that relies on the behaviour of volatile "a = b = 0
Zoltán Kócsi schrieb:
paul_kon...@dell.com> wrote:
I would prefer this to generate a warning. The C language standard change
you refer to is a classic example of a misguided change, and any code whose
behavior depends on this deserves a warning message, NOT an option to work
one way or the oth
paul_kon...@dell.com> wrote:
> I would prefer this to generate a warning. The C language standard change
> you refer to is a classic example of a misguided change, and any code whose
> behavior depends on this deserves a warning message, NOT an option to work
> one way or the other.
Sure. Howeve
David Brown wrote:
> Until gcc gets a feature allowing it to whack the programmer on the back
> of the head with Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" for writing
> such stupid code that relies on the behaviour of volatile "a = b = 0;",
> then a warning seems like a good idea.
a = b = 0;
id
paul
-Original Message- From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org
[mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Zoltán Kócsi Sent:
Monday, January 30, 2012 5:03 PM To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject:
Assignment to volatile objects
Now that the new C standard is out, is there any chance that gcc's
behav
: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Zoltán
Kócsi
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:03 PM
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Assignment to volatile objects
Now that the new C standard is out, is there any chance that gcc's behaviour
regarding to volatile lhs
Now that the new C standard is out, is there any chance that gcc's behaviour
regarding to volatile lhs in an assignment changes?
This is what it does today:
volatile int a, b;
a = b = 0;
translates to
b = 0;
a = b;
because the standard (up to and including C99) stated that the value of
12 matches
Mail list logo
