gregbo (gregbo) wrote,
gregbo
gregbo

  • Mood:

Cisco interview

I had an onsite interview with a QA group at Cisco last Thursday. It went ok – better than the recent Brocade interview, but not as well as I would have liked it to. One of the people who interviewed me asked me lots of protocol questions, most of which I gave very good answers to. The time I've spent on the LinkedIn IPv6 and other computer networking-related forums has paid off.

There was a C programming question that I had trouble with involving pre- and postincrement of variables. I had never encountered this type of situation, where the target of an assignment statement is also an operand:


int v, x, y;

v = x = 5;
y = 11;

v = v++;

x = ++y + x++;

printf("%d %d %d\n", y, x, v);


The value of v is 5. The values of y and x are 12 and 18, respectively. I don't understand why either v is not equal to 6 or x is not equal to 17. I checked K&R, which doesn't say anything explicit about what happens when the target of an assignment statement is also pre- or postincremented. My general opinion is that one wouldn't want to write such code, which could have unexpected side effects, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Update: Didn't get the job. Oh well.
Tags: career, job search
Subscribe

  • Ciena interview

    I had an onsite interview at Ciena a couple of weeks ago for a Senior Systems Test position. Long story short — I didn't get the job. I think they…

  • ProtonMail test

    I took a test from 7-9am this morning from ProtonMail, a secure email provider based in Geneva, Switzerland, that has an office in SF. The test was…

  • IBM interview

    I had an interview loop yesterday at the IBM Silicon Valley Lab facility with several people from the Cloud Network Services group. Four engineers…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 4 comments