Subj : Re: Any help on why?
To   : borland.public.cpp.borlandcpp
From : Bob Gonder
Date : Wed Jul 07 2004 01:20 am

Stan DeGroff wrote:

>   for (i=0; i<x; i++){
>      xresult = double va_arg(arglist, double);
>    result += xresult;
>      printf("%d  %X, %X\n", i, xresult, result);
>   }
> That prints the
>variable "xresult" resulted in printing 0x0000. However the variable
>"result" printed ok.  Any ideas why the compiler forgets xresult?

I know this sounds weird, but try this.

   for (i=0; i<x; i++){
      xresult = double va_arg(arglist, double);
      printf("%d  %X, %X\n", i, xresult, result);
    result += xresult;
   }

I think that because xresult isn't needed later, it is optimised away.
If xresult were global, or used later, it would be made "real".
(Apparantly, being inside a printf is being invisible.)
There's a bug in the optimizer.

BTW, which compiler are you using?

.