http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But it works correctly in Turbo C and Borland C compiler why not in gcc
Well, the point is precisely that all executions, Turbo C, Borland C or GCC,
are equally correct, since the code has undefined behavio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264
--- Comment #5 from Mahesh S ---
[Bug c/59264] Incorrect order of execution on increament/decrement operator
But it works correctly in Turbo C and Borland C compiler why not in gcc
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:23 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264
--- Comment #3 from Mahesh S ---
but it gets executed correctly for 1st condition why not for 2nd and 3rd
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:36 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Your code has undefined behaviour because it modifies the same variables more
than once between sequence points.
