Bug 5724 - Evaluation order of parameters for multiple operator<< calls
Summary: Evaluation order of parameters for multiple operator<< calls
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 11751
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: c++ (show other bugs)
Version: 2.95.3
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-02-18 11:06 UTC by raoulgough
Modified: 2004-08-13 16:03 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description raoulgough 2002-02-18 11:06:00 UTC 
I have an example where

cout << f(a) << f(b);

is calling f(b) before f(a), which I think is wrong. The operator<< is (in this case) a function call, so there should be a sequence point which guarantees evaluation order.

My apologies for submitting a bug on an old version.

Release:
2.95.3-5

Environment:
Cygwin on Windows 2000

How-To-Repeat:
g++ gccseqtest.cc -o gccseqtest
./gccseqtest

Produces:
121
122

I think this should be:

122
122
Comment 1 Nathan Sidwell 2002-02-18 13:47:14 UTC 
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-Why: no, there is no sequence point there. The code is
    equivalent of
    	output (output (cout, f (a)), f (b));
    where 'output' is the operator<< function. you'll see
    that 'f (b)' can be called before or after
    'output (cout, f (a))'
Comment 2 grahams 2002-02-18 20:18:34 UTC 
From: Graham Stott <grahams@redhat.com>
To: RaoulGough@dial.pipex.com
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/5724: Evaluation order of parameters for multiple operator<< 
 calls
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:18:34 +0000

 Please supply a complete testcase.
Comment 3 Wolfgang Bangerth 2004-08-13 16:01:30 UTC 
Reopening to mark as a duplicate of...
Comment 4 Wolfgang Bangerth 2004-08-13 16:03:36 UTC 
...PR 11751. 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11751 ***