On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 08:13:25PM -0600, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:21 AM, patrick keshishian <sidster@boxsoft.com> wrote:
> ...
> > The first diff has nothing to do with the above problem. It is
> > a sequence point evaluation fix.
> ...
> > rbufp->flags |= BUF_PIN;
> > - for (bp = (u_int16_t *)rbufp->page, n = *bp++, ndx = 1; ndx < n
> > + bp = (u_int16_t *)rbufp->page;
> > + n = *bp++;
> > + for (ndx = 1; ndx < n {
> > if (bp[1] >= REAL_KEY) {
>
>
> Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any sequence-point issues in the
> original code there: the comma operator introduces a sequence-point
> between the assignment to bp and the *bp++.


I believe the order of evaluation is undefined and not portable.
If this is incorrect, then, by all means ignore the first diff.

What I'm going by is the following:

ISO/IEC 9899:TC2 Committee Draft -- May 6, 2005 WG14/N1124
Annex C (informative)
Sequence points

The following are the sequence points described in
5.1.2.3:
....
-- The end of a full expression: an initializer (6.7.8);
the expression in an expression statement (6.8.3); the
controlling expression of a selection statement (if or
switch) (6.8.4); the controlling expression of a while
or do statement (6.8.5); each of the expressions of a
for statement (6.8.5.3); the expression in a return
statement (6.8.6.4).