On 22 February 2012 19:05, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> On 22 February 2012 13:34, 嘉谟 wrote:
>> 2012/2/22 James Courtier-Dutton :
>>> The order that function parameters are evaluated is undefined. Therefore it
>>> is wise to ensure that no matter what order they are evaluated, the result
>>> sh
On 22 February 2012 13:34, 嘉谟 wrote:
> 2012/2/22 James Courtier-Dutton :
>> The order that function parameters are evaluated is undefined. Therefore it
>> is wise to ensure that no matter what order they are evaluated, the result
>> should be the same. It is the ++ that breaks it in this case. Did
2012/2/22 James Courtier-Dutton :
> The order that function parameters are evaluated is undefined. Therefore it
> is wise to ensure that no matter what order they are evaluated, the result
> should be the same. It is the ++ that breaks it in this case. Didn't you get
> a compiler warning?
Yes you
On 02/21/2012 03:18 PM, 嘉谟 wrote:
> I do a experiments to check how gcc pass the arguments.
> here is the code
>
> #include
> int main(int argc , char *argv[]){
> int a=3;
> int b=3;
> int c=3;
> printf("%d %d\n",++a+c,a+c);
> printf("%d %d\n",++b,b);
>
