Function Argument Evaluation

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <17936 at crdgw1.crd.ge.com> volpe at camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe) writes:
>The only reason the output of the program in question can be
>"200 200" is because the BEHAVIOR of the PROGRAM (right Doug?) is
>undefined because the program violates the "shall" rule in paragraph
>2 of 3.3, ...

NO -- my original argument did NOT rely on undefined behavior.  It
relied on the unspecified order of evaluation of the subexpressions.
Even without the cited "shall" in the standard, "200 200" would have
been a valid output (but not "42 3.1416").