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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #23368

Re: Precedence Misunderstanding

Show all headers | View raw

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> That's true as far as the "abstract machine" is concerned: i.e. the
> compiler must act *as if* the 'a' is evaluated, but unless 'a' is
> volatile, I'd expect a compiler to optimise it away.

You shouldn't expect it to, and a compiler better not do it.  Not only would 
it go against the standard, but there are also some techniques which it 
would break.  Consider, for example, the following:

<code>
#include <stdio.h>

int do_stuff(void)
{
   // do stuff
   if(succeeded)
      return 0;
   else
      return 42;
}

int expensive_operation_or_error_handling_function(void)
{
   fprintf(stderr,"an error occurred\n");
   return 42;
}

int main(void)
{
   do_stuff() || expensive_operation_or_error_handling_function();

   /*  // it is a bit easier on the eyes than:
   if(do_stuff())
   {
      expensive_operation_or_error_handling_function();
   }
   */
   
   return 0;
}
</code>


If the compiler optimizes this code so that the operator evaluates the 
expensive_operation_or_error_handling_function() prior to calling 
do_stuff(), do_stuff() might never be called.


Rui Maciel

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

Thread

Precedence Misunderstanding Charles Richmond <frizzle@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-07-16 23:18 -0500
  Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-16 21:54 -0700
    Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-16 22:13 -0700
      Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-16 22:36 -0700
        Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-17 13:57 +0100
    Re: Precedence Misunderstanding "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-07-17 13:35 -0500
      Re: Precedence Misunderstanding "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-07-17 20:48 +0200
      Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-17 13:45 -0500
      Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-17 12:27 -0700
        Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-07-17 20:20 +0000
      Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-17 20:34 +0100
        Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-17 12:39 -0700
          Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-17 20:57 +0100
        Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-17 20:48 +0100
          Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-07-17 21:12 -0700
            Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-18 07:14 +0000
              Re: Precedence Misunderstanding "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-18 10:11 +0100
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-18 09:18 -0700
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-18 18:10 +0100
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-18 18:27 +0100
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-18 18:53 +0100
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-18 21:07 +0100
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-19 20:47 +0300
              Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-07-18 23:54 -0700
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-19 07:21 +0000
      Re: Precedence Misunderstanding "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-07-17 20:42 +0100
      Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-07-17 20:38 +0000
        Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-19 20:54 +0300
          Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-07-19 22:02 +0000
      Re: Precedence Misunderstanding pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-07-17 22:31 -0400
      Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-18 00:35 -0700
    Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-17 22:16 +0100
      Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-17 14:22 -0700
        Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-18 16:35 +0100
          Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-18 10:03 -0700
            Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-18 18:32 +0100
              Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-18 10:45 -0700
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-07-18 19:29 +0100
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-07-18 11:45 -0700
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-18 13:26 -0700
                Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-19 00:51 -0700
              Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-07-19 00:11 -0700
  Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-17 00:05 -0500
  Re: Precedence Misunderstanding Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-17 07:40 +0000

csiph-web