notes@iuvax.UUCP (04/09/84)
#R:erix:-32700:iuvax:9500005:000:224 iuvax!apratt Apr 8 18:32:00 1984 Is it also true that *s++ = (s & 0x7F); evaluates differently, based on order of evaluation? Or is "=" not an operator in that sense (lvalues may be computed first...) -- Allan Pratt ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!apratt
ctk@ecsvax.UUCP (04/10/84)
Is *s++ = (s & 0x7f); legal C anyhow? If s is a pointer can one even write s & 0x7f?
cab@druak.UUCP (BergerCA) (04/23/84)
I understand the desire for uniform evaluation of expressions in various versions in C. There are plenty of things that make me uncomfortable as well. Expressions of the type s++ = ( s & 0x7f ); and the like just LOOK dangerous. I prefer the safer approach of s &= 0x7f; s++; which may generate slightly less efficient code of known semantics. Charlie Berger ...!druak!cab ATT Denver