2006-11-20 <osm2m21qtcut38tpapjmjvgdtshii up...@4ax.com>,
"In UTC" is interpreted to mean that it's a number which has 1 added or
subtracted from it in the same way that the 'seconds' value of UTC does
whenever there's a leap second. "True UTC" does not "include" them in
the same sense that the alternative to the POSIX interpretation would;

hai,
Can anyone help me how to divide my program into different projects? I
am using VC++ compiler.
Regards,
Harish.

(That isn't /grammatically/ ambiguous, though. There's only
the one parse for it.)
It is exactly as ambiguous as the form without parentheses, and
means (or fails to mean) the same thing.
C doesn't have [1] syntactic ambiguities: if an expression is
grammatically correct, it's grammatically correct in just one

Thanks!
I don't need them, fortunately:-)

Thanks Everyone

It's really up to the compiler. since N is known at compile time the
compiler may fully unroll the loop, since you never read i other than
in the for loop it may actually count down [or up] depending on the
platform...
With GCC 4.1.1 on my x86_64 box it does just that (with -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer). With "-O2" I get

Hi
Can anyone guide me by providing me the code ,for the following
requirement:
how to write a macro for a 16 bit processor that returns the
calculated seconds of a year assuming 365 days in a year ?
Thanking you in advance

int main()
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
for (i = N; i > 0; i--)
printf("hello \n");
assuming everything as same except the for loops and if variable i 's
usage has no problem with up or down counting which is faster?
does that depend on
1. incl or decl for a particular machine that too if they exist

Yes, just you keep walking into that wall. I'm sure that some day,
you'll be right, and there'll be a door there. In the mean time, though,
doesn't it hurt?
Richard

Sinclair Basic had _proper_ computed goto. You could GOTO 2000+100*N!
That was really useful for breaking maintainability.
Richard

In article <B7mdnQOibMMvF_zYRVn...@bt.com >,
...
As I am sure even *you* could see, there is more than one way to
interpret the English sentence: You must do <x> in order to <y>.
Take the sentence: You must go to Nepal to climb Mount Everest.
While it is possible to interpret that to mean that everybody must go to

On Nov 20, 4:08 pm, Richard Heathfield <inva...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
But, is this ambiguous ?
j = (i++) + (i++);

jacob navia said:
<snip>
Irrelevant. You didn't claim a call exists in the code. You claimed that
ExitProcess *is called*. If the program never returns from main, and does
not itself call ExitProcess, then ExitProcess is *never* called by the
program.

Richard Heathfield a