Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:43:58 +0200 From: dt71@gmx.com To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another -Wunsequenced topic Message-ID: <51DAA5FE.4040505@gmx.com> In-Reply-To: <51D03D27.3020100@gmx.com> References: <51CEEC34.2010308@gmx.com> <51D03D27.3020100@gmx.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Well, this turned out to be a semi-false alarm. A week ago, for a short time, there was a bug in Clang. There is no undefined behavior in ptr = func(++ptr);, partially because a function call introduces a sequence point in C, but Clang did not respect this at that time. However, x = func1(++ptr) + func2(++ptr); is compiler-dependent. Additionally, if func() turns out to be a macro, rather than a native function, then undefined behavior (due to unsequencedness) occurs. According to the manpage for ntohl(): "On machines which have a byte order which is the same as the network order, routines are defined as null macros.". This can bite libstand on big-endian systems So in the end, Clang has accidentally pointed me to an irrelated bug, and induced some unnecessary code changes. lolzhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51DAA5FE.4040505>