Illegal double increment operation???

[news.pace.co.uk]

Is the following legal C:

count++++;

Although I would expect to be shot for using such dodgy syntax, the question
is, is it legal syntax?
I was recently led to belive this should compile but I tried it with gcc and
it failed. If it is not valid C syntax is it valid C++?

[Walter Roberson]

In article <eo*********@nh .pace.co.uk>,
news.pace.co.uk <st********@pac e.co.ukwrote:

>Is the following legal C:

count++++;

>Although I would expect to be shot for using such dodgy syntax, the question
is, is it legal syntax?

No.

>I was recently led to belive this should compile but I tried it with gcc and
it failed. If it is not valid C syntax is it valid C++?

It is an attempt to modify the same object twice between sequence
points. But I'd have to check the references to find out whether
it is a constraint violation or undefined behaviour.
--
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
been already of old time, which was before us. -- Ecclesiastes

[Ben Pfaff]

"news.pace.co.u k" <st********@pac e.co.ukwrites:

Is the following legal C:

count++++;

Although I would expect to be shot for using such dodgy syntax, the question
is, is it legal syntax?

Syntactically, yes it is legal. But semantically it violates a
constraint: the operand of ++ must be a modifiable lvalue, but
the result of ++ is not a modifiable lvalue. Thus, ++ can't be
applied to its own result. If it weren't a constraint violation,
it would be undefined behavior due to modifying an object twice
between sequence points.
--
int main(void){char p[]="ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZab cdefghijklmnopq rstuvwxyz.\
\n",*q="kl BIcNBFr.NKEzjwC IxNJC";int i=sizeof p/2;char *strchr();int putchar(\
);while(*q){i+= strchr(p,*q++)-p;if(i>=(int)si zeof p)i-=sizeof p-1;putchar(p[i]\
);}return 0;}

[Ben Pfaff]

ro******@ibd.nr c-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

In article <eo*********@nh .pace.co.uk>,
news.pace.co.uk <st********@pac e.co.ukwrote:

>>Is the following legal C:

> count++++;

>>Although I would expect to be shot for using such dodgy syntax, the question
is, is it legal syntax?

No.

There's nothing wrong with the syntax. It fits the
"postfix-expression" syntax just fine:

postfix-expression:
primary-expression
postfix-expression [ expression ]
postfix-expression ( argument-expression-listopt )
postfix-expression . identifier
postfix-expression -identifier
postfix-expression ++
postfix-expression --
( type-name ) { initializer-list }
( type-name ) { initializer-list , }

>>I was recently led to belive this should compile but I tried it with gcc and
it failed. If it is not valid C syntax is it valid C++?

It is an attempt to modify the same object twice between sequence
points. But I'd have to check the references to find out whether
it is a constraint violation or undefined behaviour.

It's a constraint violation. Constraints are not syntactical;
otherwise they'd be formulated as part of the syntax and wouldn't
need to be explicitly stated.
--
"When I have to rely on inadequacy, I prefer it to be my own."
--Richard Heathfield

[Keith Thompson]

"news.pace.co.u k" <st********@pac e.co.ukwrites:

Is the following legal C:

count++++;

Although I would expect to be shot for using such dodgy syntax, the question
is, is it legal syntax?
I was recently led to belive this should compile but I tried it with gcc and
it failed.

The *syntax* is legal (and equivalent to "count ++ ++"), but it's
semantically invalid (a constraint violation requiring a diagnostic).
The operand of the "++" operator must be an lvalue (an expression that
denotes an object), but it doesn't yield an lvalue. "count" is an
lvalue, so "count++" is ok, but "count++" is not an lvalue, so
"count++++" is not.

If it is not valid C syntax is it valid C++?

We don't know; try comp.lang.c++ (or try a conforming C++ compiler, or
check a C++ reference).

But if you'll think about what you're really trying to do, there's
likely to be a more straightforward way to do it. If you want to increase the
value of count by 2, just write:

count += 2;

(I think some programmers think of "++" as a magic bullet, and use it
where it's really not required.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@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.

[Kenneth Brody]

"news.pace.co.u k" wrote:

>
Is the following legal C:

count++++;

Although I would expect to be shot for using such dodgy syntax,
the question is, is it legal syntax?
I was recently led to belive this should compile but I tried it
with gcc and it failed. If it is not valid C syntax is it valid
C++?

Short answer:

It's not legal because "count++" is not an l-value.

In fact, my C compiler gives the error:

'++' needs l-value

What error does gcc give?

I doubt it's legal in C++, but you would have to ask in c.l.c++,
which is down the hall and to the left.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer .h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th***** ********@gmail. com>

[Eric Sosman]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <eo*********@nh .pace.co.uk>,
news.pace.co.uk <st********@pac e.co.ukwrote:

>Is the following legal C:

> count++++;

>Although I would expect to be shot for using such dodgy syntax, the question
is, is it legal syntax?

No.

Au contraire: Yes. The token stream is syntactically valid.
It is semantically invalid, but that's another matter.

>I was recently led to belive this should compile but I tried it with gcc and
it failed. If it is not valid C syntax is it valid C++?

It is an attempt to modify the same object twice between sequence
points. But I'd have to check the references to find out whether
it is a constraint violation or undefined behaviour.

Things never get that far. The constraint violation (for
which a diagnostic is required) is that `count++' is not an
lvalue, as required by the rightmost `++'.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid