From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 30 13:23:37 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C575D54; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:23:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from tensor.andric.com (tensor.andric.com [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:1:2d0:b7ff:fea0:8c26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D231E86; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7::24f7:45d:f2c2:a5d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:3a7:0:24f7:45d:f2c2:a5d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C0F75C43; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:23:32 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r252376 - head/lib/libutil From: Dimitry Andric In-Reply-To: <20130629161914.GD91021@kib.kiev.ua> Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:23:31 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <65B29369-2B3C-4018-AFEA-AC57E86404A3@FreeBSD.org> References: <201306291552.r5TFqnLV022460@svn.freebsd.org> <20130629161914.GD91021@kib.kiev.ua> To: Konstantin Belousov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, "dt71@gmx.com" , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Tim Kientzle , src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:23:37 -0000 On Jun 29, 2013, at 18:19, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:52:49PM +0000, Tim Kientzle wrote: >> Author: kientzle >> Date: Sat Jun 29 15:52:48 2013 >> New Revision: 252376 >> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/252376 >> >> Log: >> Fix -Wunsequenced warning > What is this ? From the name of the warning, it sounds as if the problem > is in the lack of sequence point between two modifications of the same > variable in the expression ? > > But, there function' argument evaluation and function call are separated > by seq point, AFAIR. Could you, please, clarify ? Yes, a function call is a sequence point. The -Wunsequenced warning was made too aggressive in this trunk upstream commit: I pointed out the problem to the author, and he fixed it in: -Dimitry