Paulo Henrique Torrens <[email protected]> wrote: (12/04/2012 16:14)
>Yeah, != has bigger precedence, but look what you did: it is on the left side >of the expression, so it wouldn't be a valid syntax that way. :) This is true. :) But remember, I didn't know that at the time, so I decided to try what amounts to this: If 92 isn't equal to whatever resulted from copy after iteration... Now that I know this shouldn't work when written as while(92!=*--o=*--i) instead of while((*--o=*--i)!=92), it's odd that it compiles and runs as decribed without a warning or error in TCC. (If all compilers did as TCC seems to do I wouldn't mind, it makes just as good sense to me, but maybe just because I don't know enough about the implications if assignment was getting the higher priority as it appears here). >Probably GCC just skips this syntax, and I'm not sure if the second option >(seeing the *--o = *--i as the right side) is invalid in an ANSI application, >but TCC's accepting it would be like an "extension", ain't it? I think this >couldn't be seem as a bug... but yeah, probably this is worth a compiler >warning. > At least... :) I did consider the direction of reading, but I thought that it wouldn't matter in this case so long as the comparison took priority over the assignment as it should. > > >Sorry for the last reply, my answer didn't much make sense... I've read it >quickly from my cellphone, didn't pay much attention. > No problem. Any attention is better than none. I think this might be less simple than it looks anyway, like a lot of logical problems. _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
