Compound statements in expressions
 

Take a look at this C snippet:

#include <stdio.h>

int test(int *var)
{
return(*var += 5);
}

int main(void)
{
int var;

var = 1;
printf("%i %i %i\n", ({var += 4; var;}),
(printf("%i\n", test(&var)), var),
(var += 10, var -= 4));
}

When compiled with GCC 3.3, it outputs the following when run:
6
10 16 16

Now I'm wondering - Are these types of constructs allowed by the C
standard, or are they GCC extensions? If they are standardized, what is
the standardized semantics. That is, in which order are they intended to
be executed, what's the difference between "(var += 4, var)" and "({var
+=4; var;})", and what does "(expr1, expr2, expr3)" really mean when
it's not an argument list to a function.

Also, why must I write "({var += 4; var;})" - Why can't I skip the outer
parentheses?

Thanks for your attention!

Fredrik Tolf

Re: Compound statements in expressions
 

Fredrik Tolf <fredrik@dolda2000.com> writes:
> Take a look at this C snippet:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int test(int *var)
> {
> return(*var += 5);
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
> int var;
>
> var = 1;
> printf("%i %i %i\n", ({var += 4; var;}),
> (printf("%i\n", test(&var)), var),
> (var += 10, var -= 4));
> }
>
> When compiled with GCC 3.3, it outputs the following when run:
> 6
> 10 16 16
>
> Now I'm wondering - Are these types of constructs allowed by the C
> standard, or are they GCC extensions?

It's a gcc extension.

<OT>
If your system supports it, try
info gcc 'c extensions' 'statement exprs'
</OT>

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

Re: Compound statements in expressions
 

"Fredrik Tolf" <fredrik@dolda2000.com> wrote in message
news:1096512695.10848.63.camel@pc7.dolda2000.com.. .
> Take a look at this C snippet:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int test(int *var)
> {
> return(*var += 5);
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
> int var;
>
> var = 1;
> printf("%i %i %i\n", ({var += 4; var;}),
> (printf("%i\n", test(&var)), var),
> (var += 10, var -= 4));
> }
>
> When compiled with GCC 3.3, it outputs the following when run:
> 6
> 10 16 16
>
> Now I'm wondering - Are these types of constructs allowed by the C
> standard, or are they GCC extensions? If they are standardized, what is
> the standardized semantics. That is, in which order are they intended to
> be executed, what's the difference between "(var += 4, var)" and "({var
> +=4; var;})", and what does "(expr1, expr2, expr3)" really mean when
> it's not an argument list to a function.
>
> Also, why must I write "({var += 4; var;})" - Why can't I skip the outer
> parentheses?
>
> Thanks for your attention!
>
> Fredrik Tolf
>
>

This does not compile on my system - i.e. VC7 with {} inside ().
I do not think it is valid code.

Dag

Re: Compound statements in expressions
 

Dag Viken <dag.viken@earthlink.net> scribbled the following:
> "Fredrik Tolf" <fredrik@dolda2000.com> wrote in message
> news:1096512695.10848.63.camel@pc7.dolda2000.com.. .
>> Take a look at this C snippet:
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int test(int *var)
>> {
>> return(*var += 5);
>> }
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> int var;
>>
>> var = 1;
>> printf("%i %i %i\n", ({var += 4; var;}),
>> (printf("%i\n", test(&var)), var),
>> (var += 10, var -= 4));
>> }
>>
>> When compiled with GCC 3.3, it outputs the following when run:
>> 6
>> 10 16 16
>>
>> Now I'm wondering - Are these types of constructs allowed by the C
>> standard, or are they GCC extensions? If they are standardized, what is
>> the standardized semantics. That is, in which order are they intended to
>> be executed, what's the difference between "(var += 4, var)" and "({var
>> +=4; var;})", and what does "(expr1, expr2, expr3)" really mean when
>> it's not an argument list to a function.

> This does not compile on my system - i.e. VC7 with {} inside ().
> I do not think it is valid code.

As has already been said, it's a GCC extension. So it's non-standard
code and thus not guaranteed to be valid on *any* specific compiler.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"Nothing lasts forever - so why not destroy it now?"
- Quake

Re: Compound statements in expressions
 

"Joona I Palaste" <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:cjgaau$4ja$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> Dag Viken <dag.viken@earthlink.net> scribbled the following:
> > "Fredrik Tolf" <fredrik@dolda2000.com> wrote in message
> > news:1096512695.10848.63.camel@pc7.dolda2000.com.. .
[snip]
> >>
> >> Now I'm wondering - Are these types of constructs allowed by the C
> >> standard, or are they GCC extensions? If they are standardized, what is
> >> the standardized semantics. That is, in which order are they intended
to
> >> be executed, what's the difference between "(var += 4, var)" and "({var
> >> +=4; var;})", and what does "(expr1, expr2, expr3)" really mean when
> >> it's not an argument list to a function.
>
> > This does not compile on my system - i.e. VC7 with {} inside ().
> > I do not think it is valid code.
>
> As has already been said, it's a GCC extension. So it's non-standard
> code and thus not guaranteed to be valid on *any* specific compiler.

Why make extensions that are incompatible with the existing C/C++ standards?
It certainly does not encourage source code compatibility. And especially if
it is gcc - is there an upcoming standard that supports these extended
features?

Re: Compound statements in expressions
 

Dag Viken <dag.viken@earthlink.net> scribbled the following:
> "Joona I Palaste" <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:cjgaau$4ja$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
>> As has already been said, it's a GCC extension. So it's non-standard
>> code and thus not guaranteed to be valid on *any* specific compiler.

> Why make extensions that are incompatible with the existing C/C++ standards?
> It certainly does not encourage source code compatibility. And especially if
> it is gcc - is there an upcoming standard that supports these extended
> features?

That's what I've been wondering too. Maybe you can ask at gnu.gcc.help
or something?

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"C++. C++ run. Run, ++, run."
- JIPsoft

Re: Compound statements in expressions
 

"Dag Viken" <dag.viken@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Joona I Palaste" <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:cjgaau$4ja$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> > As has already been said, it's a GCC extension. So it's non-standard
> > code and thus not guaranteed to be valid on *any* specific compiler.
>
> Why make extensions that are incompatible with the existing C/C++ standards?
> It certainly does not encourage source code compatibility. And especially if
> it is gcc - is there an upcoming standard that supports these extended
> features?

You assume that GNU _wants_ source code compatibility. IYAM, they are
second only to M$ for embrace-and-extend, and one cannot help but
suspect that this is quite intentional.

Richard

Re: Compound statements in expressions
 

Richard Bos wrote:
> "Dag Viken" <dag.viken@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Joona I Palaste" <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>>
>>> As has already been said, it's a GCC extension. So it's
>>> non-standard code and thus not guaranteed to be valid on *any*
>>> specific compiler.
>>
>> Why make extensions that are incompatible with the existing
>> C/C++ standards? It certainly does not encourage source code
>> compatibility. And especially if it is gcc - is there an
>> upcoming standard that supports these extended features?
>
> You assume that GNU _wants_ source code compatibility. IYAM,
> they are second only to M$ for embrace-and-extend, and one
> cannot help but suspect that this is quite intentional.

It is your own fault for not using it with the -ansi -pedantic
switches. Unlike M$ gcc allows all those extensions to be
switched off. I consider it would be preferable to allow them to
be switched on. Then you can think of gcc as a test bed for
possible new features.

--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Re: Compound statements in expressions
 

In <JmO6d.5204$ls6.2061@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink. net> "Dag Viken" <dag.viken@earthlink.net> writes:


>"Joona I Palaste" <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>news:cjgaau$4ja$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
>> Dag Viken <dag.viken@earthlink.net> scribbled the following:
>> > "Fredrik Tolf" <fredrik@dolda2000.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1096512695.10848.63.camel@pc7.dolda2000.com.. .
>[snip]
>> >>
>> >> Now I'm wondering - Are these types of constructs allowed by the C
>> >> standard, or are they GCC extensions?

You can trivially get the answer yourself, by compiling with gcc in
standard conforming mode (the -ansi -pedantic options). If you get a
clean compile, they are probably allowed by the C standard (the other
possibility is that they invoke undefined behaviour, so no diagnostic is
require).

>> >> the standardized semantics. That is, in which order are they intended
>to
>> >> be executed, what's the difference between "(var += 4, var)" and "({var
>> >> +=4; var;})", and what does "(expr1, expr2, expr3)" really mean when
>> >> it's not an argument list to a function.
>>
>> > This does not compile on my system - i.e. VC7 with {} inside ().
>> > I do not think it is valid code.
>>
>> As has already been said, it's a GCC extension. So it's non-standard
>> code and thus not guaranteed to be valid on *any* specific compiler.
>
>Why make extensions that are incompatible with the existing C/C++ standards?

Why not, as long as they don't break *any* correct C program?

>It certainly does not encourage source code compatibility.

If the extension is useful, it becomes existing practice for a future
revision of the C standard. That is, assuming that the standardisation
committee is looking for existing practice in the right places...

Most of the gcc extensions are far from gratuitous and it is a pity that
the C standardisation process has ignored/rejected them. The one you're
talking about greatly improves the functionality of function-like macros,
especially when used together with another gcc extension: typeof.

>And especially if
>it is gcc - is there an upcoming standard that supports these extended
>features?

For the time being, there is no upcoming C standard. Merely bug fixes to
the current standard.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan.Pop@ifh.de
Currently looking for a job in the European Union

Re: Compound statements in expressions
 

On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 03:08 +0000, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Fredrik Tolf <fredrik@dolda2000.com> writes:
> > Take a look at this C snippet:
> >
> > #include <stdio.h>
> >
> > int test(int *var)
> > {
> > return(*var += 5);
> > }
> >
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > int var;
> >
> > var = 1;
> > printf("%i %i %i\n", ({var += 4; var;}),
> > (printf("%i\n", test(&var)), var),
> > (var += 10, var -= 4));
> > }
> >
> > When compiled with GCC 3.3, it outputs the following when run:
> > 6
> > 10 16 16
> >
> > Now I'm wondering - Are these types of constructs allowed by the C
> > standard, or are they GCC extensions?
>
> It's a gcc extension.
>
> <OT>
> If your system supports it, try
> info gcc 'c extensions' 'statement exprs'
> </OT>

I see. I guess I should have tried -ansi, but I didn't think of it.
However, that texinfo only mentions these ({...}) constructs. How about
this:

printf("%i\n", (var += 10, var -= 4));

GCC accepts that with -Wall -pedantic -ansi, so I guess that is standard
C. But again, what does it really mean?

Fredrik Tolf