From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <805566779b1b3d1c546d6ae020156ada@ladd.quanstro.net> References: <805566779b1b3d1c546d6ae020156ada@ladd.quanstro.net> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:48:30 +0000 Message-ID: From: Charles Forsyth To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d84ec38162c04d5b63897 Subject: Re: [9fans] why does this compile? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 184ad5d2-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --089e010d84ec38162c04d5b63897 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 No, but the value at least isn't bizarre. It would be correct for rloge as an array, and i assume it gets through because of the way the array->pointer change is done. Even so, if it had been GCC, by now it would be an essential extension, and have been used to implement an elisp interpreter, shave micro cycles from the time of a Java vm , and by GCC itself. I might look at nipping all that in the bud tomorrow, although I think I have looked at this once before. On 14 Feb 2013 21:27, "erik quanstrom" wrote: > On Thu Feb 14 16:23:21 EST 2013, charles.forsyth@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 14 February 2013 21:15, erik quanstrom wrote: > > > > > the value > > > returned is bizarre. > > > > > > > it's the (lvalue of rloge)-1, not bizarre. > > is that a legal thing to do? > > - erik > > --089e010d84ec38162c04d5b63897 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

No, but the value at least isn't bizarre. It would be co= rrect for rloge as an array, and i assume it gets through because of the wa= y the array->pointer change is done. Even so, if it had been GCC, by now= it would be an essential extension, and have been used to implement an eli= sp interpreter, shave micro cycles from the time of a Java vm , and by GCC = itself. I might look at nipping all that in the bud tomorrow, although I th= ink I have looked at this once before.

On 14 Feb 2013 21:27, "erik quanstrom"= <quanstro@quanstro.net>= wrote:
On Thu Feb 14 16:23:21 EST 2013, charles.forsyth@gmail.com wrote:

> On 14 February 2013 21:15, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>
> > =C2=A0the value
> > returned is bizarre.
> >
>
> it's the (lvalue of rloge)-1, not bizarre.

is that a legal thing to do?

- erik

--089e010d84ec38162c04d5b63897--