This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ order of evaluation of operands, arguments
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Paul_Koning at dell dot com
- Cc: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:07:28 +0000
- Subject: Re: C++ order of evaluation of operands, arguments
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56539AD0 dot 80905 at redhat dot com> <56543423 dot 2010707 at redhat dot com> <5655FD37 dot 60101 at gmail dot com> <3A115667-12B3-470E-9FD6-D2CDAE11DE8E at dell dot com>
On 25 November 2015 at 19:38, <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
> I'm really wondering about this proposal. It seems that it could affect optimization. It also seems to be a precedent that may not be a good one to set. Consider the dozen or so "undefined behavior" examples in https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/ub:apsys12.pdf -- would the committee want to remove ALL of those?
I'm not aware of any suggestion to remove ANY of those.