Re: [avr-gcc-list] Wrong excution order in 4.1.1, but not 3.4.5, regression?

[David Brown]

Graham Davies wrote:
> David Brown wrote (in part):
>
> > There are at least two of ways to interpret "a = b = c" while 
> > maintaining right-to-left associativity, when the variables are all 
> > volatile:
>
> You're right.  I was wrong.  I should have taken more time to understand 
> the nature of the problem.  Especially given the well-chosen text of the 
> subject.
>
> > Code which is unclear to the writer and to readers is bad code.
>
> I agree.  Different definition of the word "wrong", but bad code = wrong 
> code works for me.
>
> Humbly, Graham.

I sometimes get a little fanatical about what is "bad" or "wrong" code. 
 For example, I'd say the following function is bad code:

int square(int x) {
        int doubleX;            // This holds x + 3
        doubleX = x * x;        // Find the square root
        return doubleX;         // Return a random value
}


This will certainly implement a "square" function, but having incorrect, 
misleading or unclear names and comments is as bad as a functional 
error, IMHO.

Being a little fanatic, and having my own rules about what parts of C to 
use or not (for example, the comma operator does not do what a comma 
operator should do, and thus I never use it), my comments are not always 
clear to anyone other than myself.

Best regards,

David