C Strings not returning from a function

[Harald van Dijk]

Re: C Strings not returning from a function

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Harald van Dijk said:
>
[I said]

for compiling Translation Unit A. So it's hard to see how Translation
Unit A's contents can be relevant to whether a diagnostic message is
required when compiling Translation Unit B.

That's why it's not a constraint violation, just plain undefined
behaviour. No diagnostic required (but permitted as always).

>
I am delighted to announce that I have now completely lost the plot on this
thread. You have managed to spin me around and around sufficiently often
that I am quite dizzy, and I have no idea whether you are right or I am.
>
Fortunately for me, I don't particularly care (if you'll forgive me for
saying so - I assure you it's nothing personal), since what we are
discussing is code that we both agree is fundamentally broken, and our
dispute is only concerned with how the compiler is required/allowed to
react to it. Yes, academically it is interesting, and anyone who cares
enough will no doubt take up the argument if they disagree sufficiently
with you - but I have decided to adopt a position of "Just Don't Do That,
and the issue disappears." :-)

I have no problems with that. And regardless of whether a diagnostic is
required, I can agree that an implementation /should/ generate one.

[Andrew Poelstra]

Re: Fixed version

On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 14:58 +0000, Fred Kleinschmidt wrote:

*(c++)

What does this evaluate to? (Specifically, if the postfix operator is
within parentheses, does it evaluate to the old value of c or the new
one?)

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware. net/projects/>

[Thad Smith]

Re: Fixed version

Andrew Poelstra wrote:

On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 14:58 +0000, Fred Kleinschmidt wrote:
>

>>*(c++)

>
What does this evaluate to? (Specifically, if the postfix operator is
within parentheses, does it evaluate to the old value of c or the new
one?)

The old one. The parentheses do not change the value.s

--
Thad