Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #164571
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions |
| Date | 2022-01-23 23:50 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <87mtjlo9me.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <86k0euq62t.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87lez6xeld.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <868rv5oldy.fsf@linuxsc.com> <ssl80r$h8r$1@dont-email.me> <ssl84t$h8r$2@dont-email.me> |
Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 1/23/2022 7:56 PM, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
>> On 1/23/2022 7:36 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>> However, the suggested rewrite has different semantics than the
>>> previous single assignment with function call. If we want to
>>> keep the same semantics but still be able to use the macro
>>> form (but without any sequencing issues), a different writing
>>> is needed, as for example
>>>
>>> x = modf( x, (double[]){ 0 } );
>>>
>>> Writing the call this way should make it obvious that the value
>>> stored in/through the second argument is ignored and discarded.
>> That would be
>> x = modf( x, &(double[]){ 0 } );
>>
>
> Opps, my sitake. Sorry, I missed the `[]` part.
>
> Of course, your original variant is correct. Although I don't see the
> point of bringing arrays into the picture. One can just do
>
> x = modf( x, &(double){ 0 } );
My preference would be:
double ignored;
x = modf(x, &ignored);
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-01-20 15:59 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-20 16:35 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-23 14:38 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-23 19:36 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-01-23 19:56 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-01-23 19:58 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-23 23:50 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-24 07:27 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-23 23:49 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-24 07:31 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-24 13:18 -0800
Re: Sequencing guarantees for macro versions of standard functions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-01-29 03:36 -0800
csiph-web