Need help understanding this for loop code in C
c
Solution
The TCC output for the 2nd example is wrong.
From the C99 standard:
The statement
for ( clause-1 ; expression-2 ; expression-3 ) statement
behaves as follows: The expression expression-2 is the controlling expression that is evaluated before each execution of the loop body. The expression expression-3 is evaluated as a void expression after each execution of the loop body. [...]
Obviously, there are no iterations here, so expression-3 should never be executed.
Similarly, in the C90 standard (or at least in a draft that I found), it says:
Except for the behavior of a continue statement in the loop body, the statement
for ( expression-1 ; expression-2 ; expression-3 ) statement
and the sequence of statements
expression-1 ;
while ( expression-2) {
statement
expression-3 ;
}
are equivalent.
Problem
Consider the following code in C: ``` void main() { int a=0; for(printf("\nA"); a; printf("\nB")); printf("\nC"); printf("\nD"); } ``` When I compile it using Turb C++ version 3.0 and gcc-4.3.4, I get the following as the output in BOTH the cases : ``` A C D ``` However, if I compile the following code: ``` void main() { for(printf("\nA"); 0; printf("\nB")); printf("\nC"); printf("\nD"); } ``` The output by gcc-4.3.4 is the same as in the previous case but turbo c++ 3.0 produces the following output : ``` A B C D ``` First of all, I have no idea what's happening here! Plus, how come the output by the gcc compiler is the same for both the codes but in the case of turboc++ 3.0 compiler, the output is different? Can someone please shed some light? EDIT : Actually someone was asked this question in an interview for an IT company and when he failed to give the answer, the interviewer gave this explanation. But I find this to be stupid. How can you ask someone to use a "bug" as if it's a "facility" provided by the language? For it to be called a "facility" and "technique", whether we pass 0 as a literal in the second expression or a variable whose value is 0, the outcome should have been the same. Am I wrong concluding that the interviewer was very dumb to ask a question like that and that it shows his incompetence?