Phil Edwards wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:49:11PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>This isn't a question of precedence, which only affects the way an
>>>expression is interpreted. It's strictly a problem of evaluation
>>>order. Precedence determines
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:49:11PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >This isn't a question of precedence, which only affects the way an
> >expression is interpreted. It's strictly a problem of evaluation
> >order. Precedence determines how the expression is parsed, i.e.
>
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>This isn't a question of precedence, which only affects the way an
>expression is interpreted. It's strictly a problem of evaluation
>order. Precedence determines how the expression is parsed, i.e.
>(-X()) + Y() vs (-X() + Y) () an so forth.
>
>
I guess this is much e
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 02:31:54PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Anyway, I do remember that the precedence occurs as in order (for above
> example)
>
> unary -
> + -
>
> I would expect X() and Y() to be undetermined until actually evaluated.
> That is,
>
> -X()+Y()
> -x+Y(), where x=evaluated X()
>
close 278081
thanks
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 01:42:02PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
>
>
>>You can rearrange -X+Y, as well as -X()+Y or -X+Y(), but you cannot do
>>this for -X()+Y() unless you can guarantee that X() doesn't depend on
>>Y() and vice-versa.
>>
>>
>
>Could
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 278081
Bug#278081: gcc-3.3: REGRESSION: Doesn't follow precedence
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
Bug closed, send any further explanations to Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 01:42:02PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> You can rearrange -X+Y, as well as -X()+Y or -X+Y(), but you cannot do
> this for -X()+Y() unless you can guarantee that X() doesn't depend on
> Y() and vice-versa.
Could you quote standard chapter and verse for this? I believe you are
I reported it upstream to,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18128
- Adam
--
Building your applications one byte at a time
http://www.galacticasoftware.com
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.5-1
Severity: important
IMHO, this bug should be grave since it has a potential for
breaking a lot of software, at least anything that
depends on things like stack operations. That is
stack A;
A.push(5);
A.push(2);
// do a subtraction of 5-2 and push resuls onto
9 matches
Mail list logo
