hi Nathaniel cc Dan,
thanks a lot for clearing up completely the entire story. I'm afraid
that one or two cycles ago of our conversation i did a simple reply
instead of a reply-all and the bioc-devel list wasn't included anymore
in the recipients of these emails.
since what you say below sou
Hi, Robert. C++ is my area so I can't speak as knowledgeably about C,
but in this case I believe the cause is the same. I think the reason it
feels like the postincrement evaluation order has been changed without
warning is the code relied on 'undefined behavior'.
Often, in C-based languages '
Hi Robert,
Please, always always _always_ compile with -Wall on. The compiler
should complain almost always when it encounters code like this.
Although I don't have gcc installed, I would be quite surprised if
even slightly older versions did not warn on this.
For reference:
kevin@Kevins-MacBook
hi Dan,
On 06/12/2014 04:28 PM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote:
[...]
Thanks for figuring this out and sharing it.
Note that on the build machines, the compiler used on Mavericks is not gcc but
clang.
More info here:
http://www.bioconductor.org/checkResults/2.14/bioc-LATEST/morelia-NodeInfo.html
http:/
Hi Robert,
- Original Message -
> From: "Robert Castelo"
> To: bioc-devel@r-project.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:45:28 AM
> Subject: [Bioc-devel] evaluation of C post-increments changed in GCC 4.8.2
>
> hi,
>
> this is just a warning to devel
hi,
this is just a warning to developers who may have C code in their packages.
today i fixed a problem in the C code of the package VariantFiltering
which can be reproduced with the following toy example.
===test.c
#include
#include
int main(void) {
char msg[] = "Hello World
