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: C++ order of evaluation of operands, arguments

On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:

I agree with much of this, but was concerned about the proposal to
define order of evaluation of function arguments as left-to-right, since
GCC does right-to-left on PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED targets, including x86_64.

Any thoughts?

Not about PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED targets, but my two-penn'orth:

The proposal seems to be a bit of a minefield.  This one:

a(b, c, d)

is a bit counter-intuitive.  I wouldn't expect a to be evaluated before
the arg list.  I wonder how many C++ programmers would.

The motivating example in the paper suggests that many C++
programmers expect a left to right order of evaluation here
due to the commonality of constructs like chains of calls.

Incidentally, both GCC and Clang evaluate the first operand
of the function call expression first in C as well in C++
(the program below prints a b c d when compiled with GCC,
and a d c b with Clang).

Interestingly, though, not all compilers take that approach.
IBM XLC, for example, evaluates it last (and the program below
prints b c d a).

  extern int printf (const char*, ...);

  void f (int b, int c, int d) { }

  typedef void F (int, int, int);

  F* f1 (void) { printf ("a\n"); return f; }
  int f2 (void) { printf ("b\n"); return 0; }
  int f3 (void) { printf ("c\n"); return 0; }
  int f4 (void) { printf ("d\n"); return 0; }

  int main ()
  #define a f1()
  #define b f2()
  #define c f3()
  #define d f4()

    a (b, c, d);


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