shapiro@uiucuxc.UUCP (01/26/84)
#R:sunybcs:-88300:uiucuxc:10900004:37777777600:73 uiucuxc!shapiro Jan 25 09:03:00 1984 I ran the program and it ran just fine. The output was 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mike@smu.UUCP (08/05/84)
#R:elecvax:-20400:smu:21700002:37777777600:1745 smu!mike Aug 4 17:40:00 1984 Written with regard to: /**** smu:net.bugs / mtxinu!ed / 8:32 am May 30, 1984 ****/ If you change the behaviour of the preprocessor, remember that C requires that the order of evaluation of expressions be undefined. Therefore, depending on any evaluation order will yield unportable code. -- Ed Gould ucbvax!mtxinu!ed /* ---------- */ From whence comes the notion that the order of evaluation of expressions is undefined? Surely most expression which appear in most programs assume some order of evaluation, as well they should. The expression x = (y + z) * 10 should be evaluated in the same order that any high-school algebra student would assume. If the C language did not define the order of evaluation for the above, would it not be difficult to get any programs working? Order of evaluation is only undefined where some algebraic rules can be applied to re-arrange an expression without changing the implied sense of the expression. I am not really sure how order of expression evaluation relates to cpp anyway. Anything cpp does is done before expression evaluation is even begun. In regards to the original note (about evaluation of macro arguments by cpp), I think that the problem presented relates to the question of how macro expansion can be selectively enabled (or, in the case of cpp, disabled). The macro language m4, along with most other macro languages of its ilk which I have seen, provide for either an explicit expansion inhibitor or an explicit expansion enabler. Given this, the programmer would have somewhat more power in the application of cpp macros. I imagine that this question has been addressed before and that some excuse was made for the limitations of cpp. Mike McNally ...convex!smu!mike
grw@zurton.UUCP (03/10/85)
I use ptrace and I don't recall seeing the 512 limit in our man pages on 4.2. Are you sure you are working with the Bizerkley documentation? I did a hand comparison of System V.2 and 4.2BSD man pages and couldn't find any substantive differences (they are both poorly written though). Gary Wasserman Hydra Computer Systems, Inc. decvax!cca!ima!hydravax!grw
emks@uokvax.UUCP (emks) (03/24/85)
I can't find the original news posting, but received a memo about this.
Please add my email address to your mailing list.
kurt
Kurt F. Sauer {mtxinu!ea,ctvax}!uokvax!emks
DoD Security Mgr.