Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #65732

Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3

Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Date 2015-07-16 17:15 -0700
References (3 earlier) <lnio9mloyl.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <d5963c50-6159-4137-940d-f5d08a0a257e@googlegroups.com> <mo3mq2$8g9$1@dont-email.me> <8a2d57b6-f355-42c4-bf91-8980916925bb@googlegroups.com> <mo7gkg$afp$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID <df8afa86-cc07-4c71-ae8a-57166e1ea508@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3
From David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 10:50:40 PM UTC-7, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 10:46 PM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 12:11:39 PM UTC-7, James Kuyper wrote:
> ...
> >> So? With an modern compiler with an aggressive optimizer, by far the
> >> quickest way to predict what order will be used would be to compile the
> >> program, and find out which order was actually used by examining the
> >> generated program.
> >  
> > But if the order matters the optimizer msut respect it or it is in
> > error. 
> 
> No - if the order is specified, the optimizer must respect it, or it is
> in error. 

That (apart for the "no") is exactly what I said. We are getting into
pointless squabbles about trivia.

If the order matters, but is not specified, it's the code
> that's in error, not the optimizer. The code is in error by reason of
> failing to specify the desired order. The C language provides all the
> constructs you need to force things to be evaluated in a specific order,
> if the order matters - all you have to do is use the right constructs.
> Example: if it's important that f() be executed before g(), don't write
> 
> 	a = f() + g();
> 
> That would constitute a failure on your part to tell the compiler that
> the order is important. Here's how to tell it that:
> 
> 	temp = f();
> 	a = temp + g();

But suppose the compiler already did that but failed to tell you.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-09 11:21 -0700
  Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-09 14:54 -0400
    Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-09 21:38 +0100
  Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-13 21:22 +0000
    Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 08:21 -0700
      Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-14 08:48 -0700
        Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 09:33 -0700
          Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-14 18:08 +0100
            Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 19:38 -0700
              Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 00:47 -0400
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 17:10 -0700
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 21:17 -0400
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 maddoxr@acm.org - 2015-07-17 07:43 -0700
              Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-16 09:35 +0100
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 17:18 -0700
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-17 01:45 +0100
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 21:19 -0400
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-17 12:14 -0400
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-17 11:00 -0700
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-19 21:24 +0000
              Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-16 07:40 -0700
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 17:20 -0700
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-17 01:49 +0100
          Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-14 11:23 -0700
          Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-14 15:11 -0400
            Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 19:46 -0700
              Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 01:50 -0400
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 17:15 -0700
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-17 01:39 +0100
                Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-16 22:26 -0400
      Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-19 21:22 +0000
      Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-19 17:57 -0400

csiph-web