Int a = 5; a = a++ + ++a; a =? (2011)

These sorts of things are neat trivia to learn about things like sequence points but 99.9% of the time if it matters in your codebase you're writing something unmaintainable.

If you can convince someone in a position of authority that they’re wrong about something technical without upsetting them then you’re probably a good culture fit and someone who can raise the average effectiveness of your team.

Other than the job for most programmers having nothing to do with whether they know the outcome, because hopefully they'd never write something like it or clean it up. And IF they found it they'd hopefully test it - given that it appears to be compiler dependent anyways.

[1] By which I mean predicting the behavior of error-prone code that requires good knowledge of all the quirks of the language to correctly answer.

I just refuse to do interviews like that any more.

At least according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B#Exp...

This isn't quite the same case, but it's a good illustration of the effect: on gcc, if you have an expression f(a(), b()), the order that a and b get evaluated is [1] dependent on the architecture and calling-convention of f. If the calling convention wants you to push arguments from right to left, then b is evaluated first; otherwise, a is evaluated first. If you evaluate arguments in the right order, then after calling the function, you can immediately push the argument on the stack; in the wrong order, the result is now a live variable that needs to be carried over another function call, which is a couple more instructions. I don't have a specific example for increment/decrement instructions, but considering extremely register-poor machines and hardware instruction support for increment/decrement addressing modes, it's not hard to imagine that there are similar cases where forcing the compiler to insert the increment at the 'wrong' point is similarly expensive.

Now, with modern compilers using cross-architecture IRs as their main avenue of optimization, the benefit from this kind of flexibility is very limited, especially since the penalties on modern architectures for the 'wrong' order of things can be reduced to nothing with a bit more cleverness. But compiler developers tend to be loath to change observable behavior, and the standards committee unwilling to mandate that compiler developers have to modify their code, so the fact that some compilers have chosen to implement it in different manners means it's going to remain that way essentially forever. If you were making a new language from scratch, you could easily mandate a particular order of evaluation, and I imagine that every new language in the past several decades has in fact done that.

[1] Or at least was 20 years ago, when I was asked to look into this. GCC may have changed since then.

With modern register allocators and larger register sets, code generation impact from following source evaluation is of course lower than it used to be. Some CPUs can even involve stack slots in register renaming: https://www.agner.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41

On the other hand, even modern Scheme leaves evaluation order undefined. It's not just a C issue.

Anyway, yes, this one example has an obvious order it should be applied. But still, something like it shouldn't be allowed.

I didn't open TFA but my first thought was "Is this even defined?".

It kinda make sense that suck fucktardedness could be not defined.

  awk 'BEGIN{a=5; a = a++ + ++a; print a}'
  12

So let me start by saying that that blog post was written was 15 years ago and I don't even remember the details of it and what I've written there. But, I have a hot-take on this topic you've touched on!

From a programmer perspective, you are absolutely right. The behaviour is undefined, end of discussion. A programmer should never rely on what they observe as the effective behaviour of an UB. A programmer must avoid creating situations in code that could result in the execution flow venturing into the areas of UB. And - per C and C++ standards - results of UB can be anything (insert the old joke about UB formatting one's disk being a formally correct behaviour).

However, I'm a security researcher, and from the security point of view - especially on the offensive side - we need to know and understand the effective behaviours of UBs. This is because basically all "low-level" vulnerabilities in C/C++ are formally effects of UBs. As such, for the security crowd, it still makes sense to investigate, understand, and discuss the actual observed effects of UBs, especially why a compiler does this, what are the real-world actual variants of generated code (if any) for a given UB for this and other compilers, how can this be abused and exploited, and so on.

My point being - there are two sides to this coin.

The problem is that it’s not specified which should be picked, but all pick something.

After separating a++ onto its own line, replacing a++ with a+=1 or a=a+1 comes down to personal taste in syntax sugar. I vote for a+=1.

I'm going top-to-bottom through comments, and there was a similar question, so I'll link my answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48140821 (TL;DR: you are right, but there's another perspective on this)

(this is related to my other comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48140821)

    #include <stdio.h>

    int main() {
        int a = 5;
        a = a++ + ++a;
        printf("%d\n", a);
        return 0;
    }

    example.c
    ASM generation compiler returned: 0
    example.c
    Execution build compiler returned: 0
    Program returned: 0
    13

    ASM generation compiler returned: 0
    Execution build compiler returned: 0
    Program returned: 0
    12

    <source>:5:10: warning: multiple unsequenced modifications to 'a' [-Wunsequenced]
        5 |     a = a++ + ++a;
          |          ^    ~~
    1 warning generated.
    ASM generation compiler returned: 0
    <source>:5:10: warning: multiple unsequenced modifications to 'a' [-Wunsequenced]
        5 |     a = a++ + ++a;
          |          ^    ~~
    1 warning generated.
    Execution build compiler returned: 0
    Program returned: 0
    12