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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #65740

Re: Unspecified Behaviors in C90 - part 3

Show all headers | View raw

On 17/07/15 01:15, David Kleinecke wrote:
> 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.

No, there is a slight but very significant difference. You wrote "if the 
order matters". He wrote "if the order is specified". Those are not the 
same thing. If the order doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. If it does 
matter, though, it's *your* job (as things stand at present) to ensure 
that things happen in the right order - and that's as it should be. (In 
fact, even if the order of evaluation were specified, it would still be 
your job - it's just that your job will be marginally easier if the 
evaluation order matches the order that you write the code, and 
marginally harder otherwise). James is saying that *if* the 
implementation were required to specify its order of evaluation, *then* 
it would be required to honour that spec.

It is not a trivial distinction. It is a very important distinction.

>
>> 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.

Then you've lost nothing, and in fact you've gained clarity of 
expression. It's a better program, and it will survive a port to a 
compiler that /doesn't/ do that.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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