This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/7135: Faulty Operator Precedence
- From: "Brian Lindahl" <lindahlb at hotmail dot com>
- To: nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 27 Jun 2002 18:56:02 -0000
- Subject: Re: c++/7135: Faulty Operator Precedence
- Reply-to: "Brian Lindahl" <lindahlb at hotmail dot com>
The following reply was made to PR c++/7135; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Brian Lindahl" <lindahlb@hotmail.com>
To: nathan@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, lindahlb@hotmail.com, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, unifex@yuidesigns.net, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: c++/7135: Faulty Operator Precedence
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:47:27 -0700
First of all, I disagree with your analysis. One fact alone should
contradict the analysis:
Inlining the methods changes the compiler output, and thus, the output
displayed on the screen.
I believe that, according to C++ semantics, inlining a function should not
change compiler output.
I think the problem in my example was the naive expansion of the code from:
cout << a.set(5).get() << a.set(30).get();
To:
operator<<(operator<<(cout, a.set(5).get()), a.set(30).get());
In fact, I should have stated that the code should be equivalent to:
operator<<(
operator<<(
cout,
A::get(
&A::set(5, &a)
)
),
A::get(
&A::set(30, &a)
)
);
(Note the method, set, returns '*this' as a 'const A &')
> There are 4 sequence points in that, each between
> evaluating the parameters to a call, and the call itself.
> These sequence points are partially ordered, but not
> completely ordered. In particular there is no ordering
As shown above, there are more than 4 sequence points, in evaluating the
parameters of the parameters of the call. Furthermore, the existance of
parenthesis creates a need, I believe, for complete ordering, not the
partial ordering you suggest.
> completely ordered. In particular there is no ordering
> between the a.Wobble (30) call and the a.Wibble (5) call.
Correct, in particular. But because they are contained in different layers
of parenthesis, there is a complete ordering in the code.
I hope I understood what you meant correctly,
-Brian Lindahl
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com