jtv@xs4all.nl wrote:
> Thank you, that would answer the question. There is no "also" about it;
> it's exactly what I was asking all along. The conclusive answer for us
> would be in the C89 standard of course, where (at least in the draft that
> Neil quoted) I haven't been able to find anything like this. :-(
If in the future when compilers actually do begin applying aggressive
enough optimization that this might be a problem in practice, it seems
likely they will also have updated to C99. It seems a little much to
imagine (a) a compiler that does this in the first place (b) a compiler
that varies its interpretation of sequence points in an extremely subtle
way depending on the dialect of C in use. IOW, I think C99 is sufficient.
-Neil