On Wednesday 21 November 2001 13:52, Mathijs Mohlmann wrote:
> On 21-Nov-2001 Jan Hudec wrote:
> >> Go read up on C operator precedence. Unary ++ comes before %, so if we
> >> rewrite the #define to make it more "readable" it would be #define
> >> MODINC(x,y) (x = (x+1) % y)
> >
> > *NO*
> > MODINC(x,y) (x = (x+1) % y)
> > is correct and beaves as expected. Unfortunately:
> > MODINC(x,y) (x = x++ % y)
> > is a nonsence, because the evaluation is something like this
> > x++ returns x
> > x++ % y returns x % y
> > x is assigned the result and it's incremented IN UNDEFINED ORDER!!!
> > AFAIK the ANSI C spec explicitly undefines the order.
>
> in fact, gcc does (according to my tests):
> MODINC(x,y) (x = (x % y) + 1)
drivers/message/i2o/i2o_config.c:#define MODINC(x,y) (x = x++ % y)
Alan, can you clarify what this macro is doing?
What about making it less confusing?
-- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 23 2001 - 21:00:27 EST