Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: <003501bf8bba$e51882f0$0201a8c0@jayk_home4nt> From: "Jay Krell" To: "swe sd" , Subject: Re: problem in C++ pointer Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:35:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Darn, sent that before finishing.. >something like, skipping endl. >cout.<<(A[0]).<<(" ").<<(&A).<<(" ").<<(&A[0]).<<(*X).<<(*X+5).<<(*X).<<(" >").< To: swe sd ; cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Date: Saturday, March 11, 2000 4:31 PM Subject: Re: problem in C++ pointer >Your code might be triggering undefined behavior in C++, because of the >++X[0] in the same statement where you otherwise read X[0]. Definitely >something like >printf("%d%d", X[0], ++X[0]); >is undefined but I've read something along the lines that when the >operators are actually overloaded, function calls, that the order of >evaluation becomes defined.. > >> line 9: cout<> line 10: <<*X<> line 11: <<*X+5<> line 12: <<*X<<" "<> line 13: <<5+X[0]<> line 14: <<( X[0]==0 ? "X[0]=0" : "X[0]!=0")<> line 15: <<++X[0]< >something like, skipping endl. >cout.<<(A[0]).<<(" ").<<(&A).<<(" ").<<(&A[0]).<<(*X).<<(*X+5).<<(*X).<<(" >").< > - Jay > >-----Original Message----- >From: swe sd >To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com >Date: Saturday, March 11, 2000 9:31 AM >Subject: B20: problem in C++ pointer > > >> I compiled the following program (attachment test.cc): >> line 1: #include >> line 2: void main() >> line 3: { const int size=10; >> line 4: int A[size]; >> line 5: int *X=NULL, i; >> line 6: for (i=0;i> line 7: cout<> line 8: X=A; >> line 9: cout<> line 10: <<*X<> line 11: <<*X+5<> line 12: <<*X<<" "<> line 13: <<5+X[0]<> line 14: <<( X[0]==0 ? "X[0]=0" : "X[0]!=0")<> line 15: <<++X[0]<> line 16: } >> and executing it gives output: >> $./a.out >> 0 0x259fd7c 0x259fd7c >> 1 0x259fd7c 0x259fd7c >> 1 >> 6 >> 1 1 >> 6 >> X[0]!=0 >> 1 >> Obviously, the output of line 9 is different from line 7 which should >be >>the same indeed. Is there anything wrong ? Thanks. >> >>______________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> > -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com