From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6B7DA7E3-3917-4A67-9084-1B5DD90D97F9@me.com> References: <1448274004.1751482.447419065.2BE466C4@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6B7DA7E3-3917-4A67-9084-1B5DD90D97F9@me.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:09:34 +0000 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bacb40e2a2b7e052534193a Subject: Re: [9fans] Undefined Behaviour in C Topicbox-Message-UUID: 76f23642-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --047d7bacb40e2a2b7e052534193a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 23 November 2015 at 11:50, Brantley Coile wrote: > These bloated compilers can never be idiot proof because idiots are so > ingenious. One thing that struck me about that earlier gcc example, where the test for "tun" is eliminated because of bad compiler reasoning, is that the same compiler whines interminably until you put parentheses round nearly everything. Ok, ok, some of the priorities in C are weird for historical reasons, but it's very tedious wading through parentheses in cases where the priority is indeed conventional. --047d7bacb40e2a2b7e052534193a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On 23 November 2015 at 11:50, Brantley Coile <brantleycoile@me.com= > wrote:
These bloated compiler= s=C2=A0 can never be idiot proof because idiots are so ingenious.

One thing that struck me about that earlier gcc example, wher= e the test for "tun" is eliminated because of bad compiler reason= ing,
is that the same compiler whines inter= minably until you put parentheses round nearly everything. Ok, ok, some of = the priorities in
C are weird for historica= l reasons, but it's very tedious wading through parentheses in cases wh= ere the priority is indeed conventional.
--047d7bacb40e2a2b7e052534193a--