Hello All, Thanks a lot for the information, I have a much clear picture now. Regards, /Manjunath B.S. On 10/19/06, Rupert Wood <me@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote: > No, it's nothing at all to do with the ABI, and it has nothing to do > with the order in which the arguments are evaluated. Postincrements > may be performaed at any time at all, as long as they are complete > before the next sequence point. For example, gcc used to queue all > postincrements and emit them at the next sequence point. OK, thanks for putting me straight. My version came from old observations (from other compilers too) but I didn't consider how SSA would change it all. I did see the 3,3 I was expecting from gcc 3.4.6 -O0. Rup. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
-- No fear, no guilt, no shame, this is all that takes to be a man!!
