This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: value not set via reference

On 30 January 2015 at 07:23, Conrad S wrote:
> On 30 January 2015 at 16:58, James Dennett wrote:
>> It's hardly just a loophole: C++ doesn't specify the order of evaluation,
>> so the code is wrong (i.e., non-portable, as you've found).
>> Arguably this is a design problem with IOStreams, given how
>> tempting it can be to write code that assumes left-to-right evaluation,
>> but it's not a compiler bug.
> Okay, but what is the reason for changing the "expected"
> (left-to-right) order of evaluation?  Is there an optimisation
> benefit?

Yes. IIUC Clang doesn't always order left-to-right, sometimes it
reorders arguments because doing so avoids having to spill a register
to memory so that the register can be reused for the evaluation of
another argument. So yes, allowing the compiler to decide on the order
of evaluation can have significant benefits.

> If not, why change the order to something unexpected?

There is no "change", you're presupposing a particular order, which is
not a valid assumption.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]