On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:34:13 -0500, m.roth-x6lchVBUigD1P9xLtpHBDw wrote:
> Michael D. Berger wrote:
>> In a context where exceptions are caught, I ran the fragment:
>>
>> cerr << "allocating" << endl;
>> char* arr[100];
>> for (int jj = 0; jj < 10; ++jj)
>> {
> <snip>
>> Wherein do I err?
>
> It would have been caught on 0 if that was jj++, *not* ++jj (increment
> *after* the loop, not before).
>
> mark
I believe that this is incorrect. Any item in the third position
of a for(;;) is executed after the body of the loop. In this
case ++jj and jj++ don't make any difference (except that perhaps
++jj is a little faster). In any case, the delays observed indicate
that there was one allocation.
Mike.