| 1 |
On 06/27/2010 06:52 AM, Enrico Weigelt wrote: |
| 2 |
>> remark #981: operands are evaluated in unspecified order (tons of them) |
| 3 |
>> return strcmp( left.c_str(), right.c_str() )> 0; |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I'm not sure if this really qualifies an warning, since - AFAIK - |
| 6 |
> C spec never said, that there is an evaluation order for |
| 7 |
> function parameters. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I could see how somebody might make that assumption (incorrectly), and |
| 11 |
get burned by this. However, creating local variables just to hold |
| 12 |
intermediate results so as to not embed them in function calls seems to |
| 13 |
be a lot of overhead - certainly in terms of readability, and I can't |
| 14 |
think of a situation where the compiler would have to do it on its own. |
| 15 |
I guess religiously doing this might make the code less likely to |
| 16 |
contain very subtle bugs, but perhaps it is a bit over the top for |
| 17 |
anybody who wouldn't be otherwise developing in ADA. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Rich |
Archives