This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.3 release criteria
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:40:41 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.3 release criteria
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > There are a lot of ill-formed (note I don't use other terms like
> > undefined) programs for which it is impossible to emit a diagnostic. The
> > following, for example is ill-formed, though each statement is
> > well-defined.
> >
> > int x;
> > int plus_x() { x+=1; return x;}
> > int get_x() {return x;}
> > extern int f(int, int);
> > int g()
> > { return g(plus_x(), get_x();}
>
> Err, before the pedants start, that last line should read:
>
> {return f(plus_x(), get_x());}
What is meant to be wrong with this code? There isn't a sequence point
problem: function calls do not overlap (DR#087; C++ states this
explicitly).
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk