&&**

[Karl Heuer]

In article <20757:Sep1115:30:0390 at kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd at kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <0926 at sheol.UUCP> throopw at sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>  [ that if a compiler reduces &&**x to x then it is buggy ]
>
>Question for the standards people: Is && undefined, unspecified,
>implementation-defined, or what have you?

Applying "&" to an operand that is neither a function designator nor an lvalue
violates a constraint (3.3.3.2).  Therefore, a conforming implementation is
required to diagnose an error.

(As with all such diagnostics, it is permissible for it to be a mere warning;
the implementation need not abort the compilation if it chooses to support the
extension that "&*x" is an lvalue.)

Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl at kelp.ima.isc.com or ima!kelp!karl), The Walking Lint