cond. op. on ='s LHS

[Richard Tobin]

In article <4155 at cernvax.cern.ch> burow at cernvax.cern.ch (burkhard burow) writes:
>I'm wondering if anyone has any comments on using:
>
>       *(a==b?&c:&d) = 1;

Yes, it's ugly and pointless, and furthermore prevents c and d from
being in registers.

By the way, gcc allows as an extension

    (a == b ? c : d) = 1;

which is much more reasonable.

-- Richard
-- 
Richard Tobin,                       JANET: R.Tobin at uk.ac.ed             
AI Applications Institute,           ARPA:  R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed at nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University.                UUCP:  ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin